Hi Andrew, On 11/29/06, Andrew Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For a split second after I read this I was convinced you were trolling. > > > I wouldn't suggest they are lazy or uninterested although it might be > > true of some. I don't know. I think they are probably busy and don't > > get around to it. I also think that some people maybe like making > > fancy, exciting UI's but their personalities are not suited to the > > kind of tedious and frustrating research that is necessary for > > building cross-browser code library. It requires about 20 or more > > browser versions on various operating systems. > > First of all, you seem to be referring almost entirely to Sam in the > above paragraph, based on what little he reveals about himself to the > public.
I was not refering to Sam. > It's not for me to defend Sam against allegations of poor > community maintenance; I think "having a day job" is enough. I agree, having a day job is a very good reason. Life outside of JavaScript is more important. > Every man has the freedom to choose his own library. You are right about this, of course. <snip> > There is no "right" or "wrong" library, in the same way that there is > no "right" or "wrong" language; use what makes you happy. But you seem > to be saying that a library choice is more than a simple matter of > taste. Choosing a library is much more than a simple matter of taste. <snip> > But we're all grown-ups here, and we've all made that decision as > individuals, weighing the drawbacks of Prototype against the details of > the environment in which it will be used. It's grating, then, to read > the words of someone who thinks he's better equipped to decide for me. I am not better equiped to decide than you. I want to providing an alternative to people using Rails that don't like Prototype. > Incidentally, I think Prototype stands on its own merits apart from > Rails (many major non-RoR sites use it), but I support the idea of > abstracting the JS helper methods from any particular framework. Change > your talking points and I guarantee you'll be far better-received, both > on this list and in the Rails community at large. This is the tricky part. I want to present a compelling JavaScript library for Rails. Rails already has a library. So what makes mine different? I am trying to do a better job. "Better" is comparative so I need to say better than what. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
