Hi Thomas, On 9/7/06, Thomas Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am 07.09.2006 um 20:05 schrieb Peter Michaux: > > . I wouldn't want to use > > Scriptaculous though. I don't like it much or Prototype.js because > > they have maintainance headaches and are very buggy. > > That sounds like spreading ye good ol' FUD.
It isn't FUD and I think that term is overused now as a blanket way of dismissing critisicm. > How about sharing the headaches and we'll look into it? I think that prototype.js and scriptaculous have lots of good ideas and information in them. They are also good because they move forward into cool new features quickly. I use them as a reference to find some tricky spots with browser incompatibiliies. The heavy use of navigator.userAgent is my biggest concern with maintainance problems. I avoid navigator.userAgent like the plague. Using it usually means revisting code over and over again as different browsers spoof as other browsers. > How about sharing the headaches and we'll look into it? I believe 100% that is true for you. You are involved and friendly. But prototype.js is developed in a very secretive way and I don't know if Sam every even looks at trac. I don't trust the code in prototype.js and that is based on experience using it and reading it. It is fine if others want to use it but it just isn't for me which is all I said in the previous email. If tickets to prototype.js were acted upon I would likely have sent in more. However they are not and I've decided to leave prototype even for my Rails app development. Peter --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
