On Feb 18, 12:22 pm, Marius Feraru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the only issue still standing in this paragraph is how to detect
different versions. People [1] think the right choice is not browser
detection, but object detection. This is a very weary subject, I don't
really want to reiterate
On Feb 18, 2:24 pm, Marius Feraru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nicely said, with one possible amendment: compactness as in code size?
I'd give that the lowest priority, execution speed IMHO is far more
important than download speed. After all, we're talking about web
applications, not web pages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Fuchs wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's not the case with the majority of users.
Pitifully, they are clueless. :(
They are not able to distinguish between load and run, nor about
resource caching.
Anyway, we don't really strive for download
On 2/18/07, Martin Ellis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't prototype.js be elegant without it looking like ruby code?
Prototype.js is not making Ruby in JavaScript. It just embraces the
conventions (modules, names, return types) because the two languages have
similar dynamic features. As for
Am 18.02.2007 um 22:07 schrieb Martin Ellis:
Also remember that less code means less possible breakage...
the memory leak with morph, this was caused by less code.
IMHO, that was caused by a misbehavin' JavaScript engine... :)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
