@Nick: Thanks for the link. I've followed a number of links from
there and ended at howtocreate.co.uk and learned a few things. All
valid points. I certainly don't want to take the style out of
prototype. I didn't write the library and am indebted to the
authors. Those who write the code get to do so however works best for
them.
That being said, I contend it is difficult to predict how open-source
libs will be used, especially an extremely popular library such as
Prototype. I've been working with a number of tools which build parse
trees of JS libs in my webapp in an effort to identify unused library
code so it may then be commented out to minimize the size of .js files
I serve to client browsers (for example, I may use one of the effects
in Scriptaculous' effects.js library: I don't need all the code for
the other unused effects).
For my personal needs (and a sample size of 1--me), I have found that
various open-source parsing tools work best on code that conforms to
as many static checks as possible. Also, for me personally, I have
found that most of the suggestions made by Crockford reflect real-
world experiences/bugs I have also encountered in my own code (bugs
because of case statements which fall through to other case statements
come to mind...doh!) and I want to catch those types of errors as
early as possible, so I run lint checkers against all .js files in my
webapp. Again, I'm speaking for myself personally. Others may not be
prone to these classes of errors.
For me, it has been worth it to create a version of prototype.js that
passes a bunch of strict tests so my lint checking completes
silently. I would selfishly like the changes to be in the baseline so
I don't have to maintain my own personal branch (which I am doing
currently and plan to continue) and I thought others may be interested
in the changes as well.
I previously thought that a big part of the reason there had been no
effort made to fix picky lint warnings and errors was because the core
team had limited time and better things to do, not because of concerns
regarding coding style. I submit my changes for consideration so the
debate can focus on whether or not passing lint tests is important for
the main prototype baseline, rather than whether or not someone should
take the time to make the changes.
@freshteapot: I have used Yahoo's YUICompressor to get my modified
prototype.js file down to around 79K (from 129K). I haven't tried
using YUICompressor on an unmodified version of prototype 1.6.0.3, but
I would expect you can get similar results.
Again, I think prototype is a great library and am a happy user. I
certainly won't be offended or disappointed if the baseline continues
as-is.
Cheers,
-Dane
On Jan 20, 3:39 pm, freshteapot ch...@freshteapot.net wrote:
Hi Dane,
You said you made a patch change. Not having git installed. I dont
really understand how to use that. If you were to patch a version of
prototype and send it to me. I will happily run it thru a few of the
compressors to see if the lint version allows for shrinking of the
script a little further.
That from what very little I understand of lint and the cores decision
not to follow it would be some slightly more solid food for thought.
Cheers,
freshteapot
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Prototype: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
prototype-core-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-core?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
