I wanted to clarify.
"Mootools is large based off or Moo.fx(and prototype/jQuery)>"
This is not entirely true. While moo.fx may be prototype based (the
code requires prototype to function), MooTools doesn't have any
ressemblences/connections to jQuery (or at least not apparent to me).
The only f
>On 8/13/07, Eridius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Well after using jQuery and then going back to Mootools i do find i like a
> few thing about jQuery better. One thing i think jQuery does better is
> going through the DOM and selecting whatever i want fast and easy. I also
> like the .css()
You know it is always the simple thing that you never think of.
Klaus Hartl wrote:
>
>
> Eridius wrote:
>>
>> Well after using jQuery and then going back to Mootools i do find i like
>> a
>> few thing about jQuery better. One thing i think jQuery does better is
>> going through the DOM and
Eridius wrote:
Well after using jQuery and then going back to Mootools i do find i like a
few thing about jQuery better. One thing i think jQuery does better is
going through the DOM and selecting whatever i want fast and easy. I also
like the .css() function because in mootools i would have
Well after using jQuery and then going back to Mootools i do find i like a
few thing about jQuery better. One thing i think jQuery does better is
going through the DOM and selecting whatever i want fast and easy. I also
like the .css() function because in mootools i would have to create a
fx.St
Ah...I gotcha. You're probably right, I was most likely mixing up my
libraries.
-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Eridius
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:42 AM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: Why jQuery
Well this is true and not true. Mootools is based on Moo.fx which might have
been around much longer than jQuery but Mootools i believe was released a
few months after jQuery. Mootools is largely based off or Moo.fx(and
prototype/jQuery)
Andy Matthews-4 wrote:
>
>
> Actually, I believe that
Actually, I believe that Moo Tools has been around for quite a bit longer
than jQuery. It was one of the first effects libraries I looked at before I
ever even heard of jQuery.
-Original Message-
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Eridius
Sent: Saturd
I just wanted to post my reply from your other thread, not sure if you saw it:
To write a class how you like, you could do it like this:
function ajax_request(options){
// initialize
this.setOptions( options );
}
ajax_request.prototype = {
// members and properties
setOptions: function(opti
http://www.apex-wowguild.com/dev/javascript/ajax.js
This is a example. I can create a object and then modify it based on the
user interaction. If i can not store this as an object i would need to
write code to create each different option the user can do instead of just
modifying this one obje
Trying to reply with the code i cut out to see if it works, the code is in
order
1 => $().click(function(){});
2 => $().addEvent('click', function(){});
3 => var ajax_request = function(options)
{
ajax_options =
{
test: 'test'
};
test = function()
{
a
Benjamin,
Think google maps... It is a nice class, which can be instantiated and setup
any number of times within the same page... So, in this case class offers a
convenient blueprint for further instantiation.
Hope that clarifies a bit.
-GTG
On 8/11/07, Benjamin Sterling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Eridius,
If you do a search in the group (
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/search?group=jquery-en&q=mootools&qt_g=Search+this+group)
you will see a few comparisons between both. I think ultimately it comes
down to preference.
As for the class thing you talk about, can you give an example
13 matches
Mail list logo
