Hey There,
You're certainly on to something there, the amount of plugins
and community support for jQuery dwarfs our efforts with prototype.
That isn't to say it doesn't exist, just unfortunately not as strong,
at the moment. I found this proof in the number of components
contributed to ajaxrain where jquery has some 4X more than
prototype. I also agree completely with unified documentation, I
had created a Google CSE for all things prototype a while back which
can certainly help you refine your search,
http://positionabsolute.net/blog/2007/11/prototype-custom-search-engine.php
I believe prototype to be the stronger framework, as noted yes
jQuery has some swift baked-in functionality that lets designers
easily add JS behaviors and smooth effects but when it comes down to
application development, my eggs are in prototype's basket. The only
way to change this situation is for us, the developers, to step up and
contribute more to the community.
Regards,
Matt
On Jan 15, 12:48 pm, "s.ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yuan Yudistira schrieb:
> >> I must bookmark this site.
> >> thanks for the info
>
> > me too. thanks as well.
> > strange that i didn't find this before even if i googled a lot for
> > something like this.
> > probably it would make sense to have a link on the prototype page.
>
> > cheers
> > simon
> >> YNY
>
> >> On Jan 15, 2008 3:11 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.scripteka.com/
>
> Well, the reason I asked the question in the first place is that there
> are a lot of plugins you can drop in to extend jQuery and it looks
> pretty appealing. From the responses, it's clear that at least a
> couple of people were as ignorant of scripteka.com as I was.
>
> I see Prototype/Scripty as the more natural alternative cuz I'm a
> Rails programmer, and am doing some sniff-testing of the two side-by-
> side. Idiomatically, they are different, but in common use-cases, the
> conclusion I'm drawing is:
>
> - jQuery allows you to do zippy things in what seems to be fewer lines
> of code
> - Once you stray outside the baked-in zippy stuff, the "fewer" part
> goes away as well
> - Prototype/Scripty allow you to do zippy things, but you have to
> learn terminology that is more design pattern like so it appeals more
> to devs than designers
> - Prototype/Scripty don't automatically iterate collections so
> assigning behaviors can involve a few more characters of typing
> - Scripty, in particular, supports some effects that everyone wants
> like the ubiquitous yellow fade
> - Prototype, in particular, dovetails with Rails where jQuery requires
> a plugin that rewrites Rails helpers to do so
> - UJS, which would make tying events to behaviors for Prototype relies
> on rewriting Rails helpers, so it breaks templating languages like Haml
>
> The "compare prototype with jquery" Google search turns up a couple of
> prominent blog postings. Fortunately, they are not all "jQuery rocks,
> Prototype is ugly," however, the noise on the Web is still more along
> those lines, so it's a PR issue and despite how it "should" be, some
> people will choose what they perceive to be the latest greatest thing.
> Maybe that's not who you want using Prototype (maybe that's not who
> you want using Rails :).
>
> The one thing that is pointed out relatively frequently is the
> difference in the documentation. If the Prototype/Scripty
> documentation could be unified and searchable, it would go a long way
> toward changing that argument.
>
> Anyhow, that's my grand experiment thus far.
>
> Hope this is useful and not just off-topic.
>
> On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:24 AM, simon wrote:
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
