On 11/29/06, Ken Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andrew Dupont wrote: > > The biggest difference between Prototype zealots and zealots of other > > libraries, I've found, is that the former embraces the term "philosophy > > differences" whereas the latter prefers "poor design decisions." ... > > > > > >> On Nov 29, 12:55 pm, "Peter Michaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:... > >> > >> advantages > >> > >> * an aspiration for the highest quality code > >> * author documentation > >> * in-browser unit/integration tests > >> * namespaced code > >> * does not augment JavaScript built-in prototypes > >> * does not add a layer of sugar on top of JavaScript to make > >> writing JavaScript like writing in another language > >> * Is minimizable with jsmin > >> * MIT License > >> > Andrew, > Very well put. I agree that most of these "advantages" are really > philosophy preferences. I've been using prototype + scriptaculous > heavily for almost a year now, (outside of Ruby) and none of these > "advantages" mean anything for my coding situations.
If your coding situation ever changes to where you will be injecting small bits of code into an already large site with lots of varied, old and bad JavaScript then you probably won't be able to use Prototype and sleep well. The augmentation of built in prototypes and the lack of a namespace could really burn you. And then if you have to stop using Prototype and Scriptaculous you have to invent new code or learn a new library. 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
