Yesterday, I posted a follow-up via GG; not sure what had happened--
probably a GG bug or word filter in jQuery mailing list? Anyway,
FWIW...
On Feb 13, 11:58 am, John Resig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
3) Attaching properties to DOM elements is really really slow. Doing
speed tests
It looked to me (I could be wrong) that if I have 10 text inputs of the same
name, I will only get the value of the first one if I do a fieldValue(). Is
this incorrect?
Hmm, no, that's correct. Thanks for pointing that out!
But this way, the library can be used either stand-alone or as a
6) Finally, can anyone comment on introducing jQuery into a team of
web
developers with low to moderate javascript experience, building
webapps or
web sites that could run into the millions of dollars? Is jQuery
robust
enough and easy enough to deploy that it's an easy win?
I showed
Matt Kruse wrote:
1) There seems to be a lot of emphasis on using selectors and
pseudo-selectors to access everything. It makes code short and simple, but
is it really the most efficient?
Reusing selectors helps performance.
You can reuse a selection by storing selected elements in a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Kruse
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:28 PM
To: discuss@jquery.com
Subject: [jQuery] jQuery Design Decisions? Comparison to MooTools?
I've been working with JS since it was created, and I've written
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Kruse
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:28 PM
To: discuss@jquery.com
Subject: [jQuery] jQuery Design Decisions? Comparison to MooTools?
I've been working with JS since it was created, and I've written
=1607replies=12
I appreciate the tone and professionalism of the jQuery site and
community.
It's a big plus.
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-Design-Decisions--Comparison-to-MooTools--tf3218550.html#a8938358
Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com
those things available.
-Paul
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Kruse
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:28 PM
To: discuss@jquery.com
Subject: [jQuery] jQuery Design Decisions? Comparison to MooTools?
I've been working with JS
sites that could run into the millions of dollars? Is jQuery robust
enough and easy enough to deploy that it's an easy win?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-Design-Decisions--Comparison-to-MooTools--tf3218550.html#a8949022
Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive
Matt Kruse schrieb:
I am evaluating jQuery for two purposes:
I think one point yet deserves a litte more focus:
jQuery's core is small, but it has already a ton of plugins available.
Still, it is quite likely that you have some requirement that isn't
covered fully by an available plugin. In
Jörn Zaefferer schrieb:
Matt Kruse schrieb:
I am evaluating jQuery for two purposes:
Just discovered your use unary operator tip
(http://www.javascripttoolbox.com/bestpractices/#plus). Great! Much more
succinct then a parseInt(value).
I don't really like the term Best Practice
I haven't seen a community were developers learnd that much from others
as jQuery's. The bloody newbies that asked basic questions months or
even weeks ago, are now answering complex question themselve.
And some of them even make it to the project team. ;o)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 11:39 AM
To: jQuery Discussion.
Subject: Re: [jQuery] jQuery Design Decisions? Comparison to MooTools?
Jörn Zaefferer schrieb:
Matt Kruse schrieb:
I am evaluating jQuery for two purposes:
Just discovered your use unary operator tip
(http
Just discovered your use unary operator tip
(http://www.javascripttoolbox.com/bestpractices/#plus).
Great! Much more succinct then a parseInt(value).
Be very careful using the + operator this way.
+32px returns NaN
parseInt(32px) returns 32
___
On Feb 13, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Dave Methvin wrote:
Just discovered your use unary operator tip
(http://www.javascripttoolbox.com/bestpractices/#plus).
Great! Much more succinct then a parseInt(value).
Be very careful using the + operator this way.
+32px returns NaN
parseInt(32px) returns 32
is great, but a bit too
long-winded to hang on a wall ;)
Thanks again,
Matt
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-Design-Decisions--Comparison-to-MooTools--tf3218550.html#a8953902
Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com
people try to do parseInt('09') and get the wrong result and can't figure
out why. In this case, +09 works as expected.
Matt
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-Design-Decisions--Comparison-to-MooTools--tf3218550.html#a8953990
Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive
to hang on my wall as a reference. The API is great, but a bit too
long-winded to hang on a wall ;)
Thanks again,
Matt
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-Design-Decisions--Comparison-to-MooTools--tf3218550.html#a8953902
Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive
Be very careful using the + operator this way.
+32px returns NaN
parseInt(32px) returns 32
True, but in this case you aren't really type-converting to a number,
you're actually wanting to extract a number from a string.
Yeah, I just saw the gleam in Jörn's eye and knew he was thinking
Brice Burgess schrieb:
I really don't like the idea of forking jQuery, but I'd much rather have
less selectSomething logic and more doSomething logic, so maybe at some
point I'll prepare a version of about the same size (or bigger) with
emphasis on the opposite end. Or maybe not. jQuery does
wall as a reference. The API is great, but a bit too
long-winded to hang on a wall ;)
Thanks again,
Matt
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-Design-Decisions--Comparison-to-MooTools--tf3218550.html#a8953902
Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Hi Matt,
It seems that the library has heavy emphasis on the selectSomething in its
core, and depends a lot on plugins for the doSomething part. I can forsee
writing my own jQuery++ or whatever that adds a lot more functionality
that I consider to be core rather than depending on multiple
Dave Methvin schrieb:
True, but in this case you aren't really type-converting to a number,
you're actually wanting to extract a number from a string.
Yeah, I just saw the gleam in Jörn's eye and knew he was thinking about
changing the parseInt/parseFloat to + in jQuery core. There are
line
of explanation or example. Just something to jog the memory, but not a
replacement for the API.
At some point I can also look into creating a cheat sheet if it's not yet
done.
Matt
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-Design-Decisions--Comparison-to-MooTools
Matt Kruse schrieb:
Is there a better official form plugin? The one listed is weak for basic
form functions, so I plan to adapt my own form functions into jQuery style
and make it a plugin. I can't live without isChanged() on form fields!
I think it's a bit unfair to call that plugin weak. I
developers.. I was sold. I won't go back to prototype. Ever.
Prototype is dead, long live Jquery.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-Design-Decisions--Comparison-to-MooTools--tf3218550.html#a8955191
Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Yep. Jonathan Snook does a great job of creating those. I read his blog
all the time.
Lets see what can be done. Thanks for the links.
Rey
Matt Kruse wrote:
Rey Bango-2 wrote:
Send me the link to the PT one and we'll see what we can do.
This one is nice:
I agree with Klaus.
Matt, you may really want to try digging into it as Mike Alsup really
put a ton of functionality into the plugin. I think you may not have
fully reviewed it. If there's something that you think could be useful,
then you should post it here so that Mike can provide some
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Kruse
Subject: Re: [jQuery] jQuery Design Decisions? Comparison to MooTools?
I've found a version of a Cheat Sheet but it's not nearly as cool as
the
latest Prototype cheat sheet. I was hoping to find a cool color
printable
sheet
If there's something that you think could be useful,
then you should post it here so that Mike can provide some feedback.
By all means. The form plugin, like most others, is a work in
progress. It's not done, but what's there so far has proven to be
robust, fast and useful. Input on additions
Awesome Alex!!
Thanks for doing this. :o)
Rey
Alex Cook wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Kruse
Subject: Re: [jQuery] jQuery Design Decisions? Comparison to MooTools?
I've found a version of a Cheat Sheet but it's not nearly as cool as
the
latest
://www.nabble.com/jQuery-Design-Decisions--Comparison-to-MooTools--tf3218550.html#a8957759
Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/
I didn't mean to be insulting when I said it was 'weak' - I'm sure it is
technically solid. But it lacks common functionality that I would expect,
No offense taken, no worries. You bring up some great points. I
suspect some of the functionality you mentioned is spread across some
of the other
Hi Matt,
I just tried http://docs.jquery.com/Plugins and it came up. It may have
been a temporary hiccup. Try it again.
Rey...
Matt Kruse wrote:
malsup wrote:
If there's something that you think could be useful,
then you should post it here so that Mike can provide some feedback.
By all
:)
Matt
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-Design-Decisions--Comparison-to-MooTools--tf3218550.html#a8958367
Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http
Gotcha.
John Resig wrote:
Rey -
He was referring to the URL pointing to the forms plugin, on the
plugin page. I just fixed it (a couple URLs were broken). It should be
working now.
--John
On 2/13/07, Rey Bango [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Matt,
I just tried
appreciate the tone and professionalism of the jQuery site and community.
It's a big plus.
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/jQuery-Design-Decisions--Comparison-to-MooTools--tf3218550.html#a8938358
Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Matt,
Waning: The following is written by a NON-programmer.
jQuery to me is the evolution of CSS, not the evolution of JavaScript. When
I discovered CSS, I fell in love with it because of the :hover tag. It just
worked. I didn't need to learn programming. It was like magic. To me,
jQuery
Hey Matt -
Thanks for the post. It looks like you've spent a lot of time really
considering the issues. I agree, choosing a library is non-trivial.
I'll try to answer a bunch of your questions, be sure to let me know
if I missed any.
1) There seems to be a lot of emphasis on using selectors
39 matches
Mail list logo
