[Proto-Scripty] Re: Rails 3.1 - Prototype = WTF?
Excellent. Thanks for providing that quote. j On Mar 15, 2:49 pm, Felix wrote: > Hi, > I found this answer(by andrew dupont) in quora to a question about > the prototype library. > > Question was > What must Prototype JS do to become the library of choice?Edit > Once Prototype JS was very popular until jQuery was released and > became very popular. What are the things you feel Prototype JS must do > in order to become the library of choice?. > > Answer by Andrew Dupont. > > I'm the co-maintainer of Prototype. I don't speak for Tobie (my fellow > co-maintainer) or Sam (who created Prototype), but here's what I feel: > > In recent years, Prototype has been starved for development resources. > Unlike jQuery, nobody's working on it full-time; I work on it more > than anyone else, but I've got a full-time job as well. On one hand, > we're genuinely out of new areas to tackle and are looking more toward > a reimagining of the existing API than toward adding large new > features; on the other hand, there's a definite lack of polish, and I > hope to address that in subsequent releases. > > Where would I improve Prototype? Well, let's start with Keith's list. > About half of it is stuff that we've got planned, whether for a 1.X > version or for 2.0 (anything that affects backward-compatibilty must > wait for 2.0). Some of it is being worked on (like the UI library — > I'm building one for script.aculo.us 2.0). Some of it is a matter of > opinion. Keith and I will have to disagree on the "trying to make > JavaScript feel like Ruby" thing; the entire point of Prototype is > that JavaScript and Ruby are so close in philosophy that we can borrow > concepts from Ruby without having them feel tacked-on. > > And some of it, like the plugin ecosystem, is something we'd love to > fix if we had the resources. > > Too often, open-source libraries are pitted against one another as > though they were competitors in a marketplace. I honestly don't care > who has the greatest "market share" — I care only that Prototype has > enough mindshare to keep it viable (so that it can keep improving > through patches, bug reports, and so on). > > So here's my answer: to become the "library of choice," we'd probably > have to change so much about ourselves that we'd be unrecognizable. > I'm not interested in doing that. If that means we're a niche library, > so be it — we'll be a niche library with purpose. But do remember that > the niches themselves are quite large. > > In terms of market share, jQuery "won" because it is genuinely good, > easy to learn, and easy to drop into any environment. But market share > is just one way of measuring impact. The Dojo guys are the revered > badasses of the JavaScript community even though Dojo has never been a > dominant toolkit. Dean Edwards has a statue in the JavaScript pantheon > even though none of his toolkits have seen widespread adoption. It's a > big world and there's room for all of us. > > You can read more about this question > athttp://www.quora.com/What-must-Prototype-JS-do-to-become-the-library-... > > Felix > > On Mar 15, 9:58 pm, greg wrote: > > > > > > > > > I don't often post here, but I've been using Prototype extensively for > > the last 6 months. Not a day goes by when I don't say something to > > myself along the lines of "Thank God for Prototype". Perhaps, had I > > started with J-Query, I'd have said the same thing about it - but I > > didn't, and I'd like to continue with Prototype. > > > It could very well be the Prototype developers are: bored, busy, > > broke, out of ideas, or any combination. Maybe instead of just saying > > things like we'd like Prototype to be more popular and do more things > > in less space, and be more relevant, etc, someone should create a wish- > > list page, with a prominent 'Donate Here' button. I don't work for > > free and don't expect others to either. (I just checked and > > Prototype's web page does not have a donate button). > > > Programmers all like a challenge, so if we as users can come up with > > concrete wishes for Prototype then perhaps the developers will take up > > the challenge. > > > And, Thank God for Prototype! > > > On Mar 14, 10:34 pm, Jason wrote: > > > > I agree and would like to see Prototype start returning to the > > > forefront as the powerful JS library it is -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
Re: [Proto-Scripty] Re: Rails 3.1 - Prototype = WTF?
On 15 March 2011 18:49, Felix wrote: > What must Prototype JS do to become the library of choice? PrototypeJS _is_ my library of choice. Job done! Well done PrototypeJS Core-Devs. And you can quote me on that! Ha. I wonder how much I'd have to pay so that I could get ... "ProtoypeJS is Richard Quadling's library of choice. Make it yours today!" on the front page. I've got chocolate and beer. Probably can also get chocolate flavoured beer if necessary! Richard. -- Richard Quadling Twitter : EE : Zend @RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Rails 3.1 - Prototype = WTF?
Hi, I found this answer(by andrew dupont) in quora to a question about the prototype library. Question was What must Prototype JS do to become the library of choice?Edit Once Prototype JS was very popular until jQuery was released and became very popular. What are the things you feel Prototype JS must do in order to become the library of choice?. Answer by Andrew Dupont. I'm the co-maintainer of Prototype. I don't speak for Tobie (my fellow co-maintainer) or Sam (who created Prototype), but here's what I feel: In recent years, Prototype has been starved for development resources. Unlike jQuery, nobody's working on it full-time; I work on it more than anyone else, but I've got a full-time job as well. On one hand, we're genuinely out of new areas to tackle and are looking more toward a reimagining of the existing API than toward adding large new features; on the other hand, there's a definite lack of polish, and I hope to address that in subsequent releases. Where would I improve Prototype? Well, let's start with Keith's list. About half of it is stuff that we've got planned, whether for a 1.X version or for 2.0 (anything that affects backward-compatibilty must wait for 2.0). Some of it is being worked on (like the UI library — I'm building one for script.aculo.us 2.0). Some of it is a matter of opinion. Keith and I will have to disagree on the "trying to make JavaScript feel like Ruby" thing; the entire point of Prototype is that JavaScript and Ruby are so close in philosophy that we can borrow concepts from Ruby without having them feel tacked-on. And some of it, like the plugin ecosystem, is something we'd love to fix if we had the resources. Too often, open-source libraries are pitted against one another as though they were competitors in a marketplace. I honestly don't care who has the greatest "market share" — I care only that Prototype has enough mindshare to keep it viable (so that it can keep improving through patches, bug reports, and so on). So here's my answer: to become the "library of choice," we'd probably have to change so much about ourselves that we'd be unrecognizable. I'm not interested in doing that. If that means we're a niche library, so be it — we'll be a niche library with purpose. But do remember that the niches themselves are quite large. In terms of market share, jQuery "won" because it is genuinely good, easy to learn, and easy to drop into any environment. But market share is just one way of measuring impact. The Dojo guys are the revered badasses of the JavaScript community even though Dojo has never been a dominant toolkit. Dean Edwards has a statue in the JavaScript pantheon even though none of his toolkits have seen widespread adoption. It's a big world and there's room for all of us. You can read more about this question at http://www.quora.com/What-must-Prototype-JS-do-to-become-the-library-of-choice Felix On Mar 15, 9:58 pm, greg wrote: > I don't often post here, but I've been using Prototype extensively for > the last 6 months. Not a day goes by when I don't say something to > myself along the lines of "Thank God for Prototype". Perhaps, had I > started with J-Query, I'd have said the same thing about it - but I > didn't, and I'd like to continue with Prototype. > > It could very well be the Prototype developers are: bored, busy, > broke, out of ideas, or any combination. Maybe instead of just saying > things like we'd like Prototype to be more popular and do more things > in less space, and be more relevant, etc, someone should create a wish- > list page, with a prominent 'Donate Here' button. I don't work for > free and don't expect others to either. (I just checked and > Prototype's web page does not have a donate button). > > Programmers all like a challenge, so if we as users can come up with > concrete wishes for Prototype then perhaps the developers will take up > the challenge. > > And, Thank God for Prototype! > > On Mar 14, 10:34 pm, Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree and would like to see Prototype start returning to the > > forefront as the powerful JS library it is -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Rails 3.1 - Prototype = WTF?
How did i manage to edit the topic subject? Wasn't intentional, since this is OT from the user assistance intent... Odd. -jt On Mar 14, 9:46 pm, "joe t." wrote: > Another anecdote along with Jane's... i make a lot of comparisons to > jQuery as well because it's the only other library i've gotten > familiar with. > > i still really like Prototype's robust set of utility & data storage > functions. i get wary of storing data directly on elements > [jQuery.data()] and sometimes it's simply not appropriate to do so, so > having Prototype's pseudo-class structure to drive the overall > functionality of a page is very helpful, because i can create "class" > members and manage data there, rather than in the HTML area of the > DOM. Classes really helped me build complex JS applications when i was > still brand new to application-style Javascript & AJAX. > > That said, Prototype is bloated, and doesn't play nice with others. > Scriptaculous is old, just as bloated, and i think 1 or 2 lines of > code have been updated in the last year, to provide Pt 1.7 > compatibility. Plus Scriptaculous doesn't provide an actual UI, just > some enhanced visual effects & other tools. And you have to be careful > of a lot of gotchas in those effects because Scriptaculous doesn't > wrap your code into HTML & object references that it will need to make > those effects work. jQuery's UI does that. One of the bigger > advantages of Scriptaculous is Builder. i much prefer creating HTML > through a node/tree structure than slapping an HTML string into an > element. However, someone went and built a jQuery plugin to do what > Builder does. /shrug > > i've noted elsewhere in this group that i don't like that there are > several aliases for many of Prototype's functions, most of which are > unnecessary Rails translations for otherwise sensible names. i get > that it's supposed to help Rails devs use Prototype efficiently, so > why not just keep only the Rails versions of functions and drop the > aliases? jQuery tends to provide one way to do a lot of things. > Prototype tends to provide a lot of ways to do one thing. > > i didn't like jQuery at first for all the reasons i stated above for > liking Prototype. Once i got the hang of the major differences & > slight syntax variations, i've found it to really save time in a lot > of ways. Granted, i also haven't built any huge application-level code > using jQuery yet, but i feel like i could now that i understand the > inner workings better. Jane mentioned event handling. i can go either > way with that. Prototype's Function#bind makes it easy to incorporate > the Class object into an event handler, but you lose context of the > element unless you use Event#findElement. And i really like Event#on, > but haven't done any heavy lifting with Prototype since 1.7 was > released. So jQuery's handlers work fine for me. > > i've also never developed with Rails, and maybe because of that i > don't feel a particular loyalty. i want the right tool for the job at > hand, and lately that has been jQuery. Especially the ease of using > plugins for "missing" functionality, and the UI library which amazes > me. > > But to address your actual question: Why has traffic died down in this > group? > > My personal observation would be that jQuery has simply gained > traction over the last couple years. Prototype... i don't know. Kinda > feels stale, neglected, and maybe a bit stuck in its ways? It seems > like there's a lot of push to make JS libraries cooperate with each > other so you can get the best each has to offer, yet Prototype can't > get itself away from modifying native objects, which forces everyone > else to provide safety schemes to accommodate. Also, where most > libraries provide compression-safe code, Prototype stays pretty rotund > at ~160K. Add Scriptaculous and you can hit 1MB of library before you > get to any of your own code. > > In spite of criticisms, i don't want this to feel like a slam against > Prototype. Obviously i still get something out of it or i'd drop my > subscription to the groups. But you ask why the traffic has slowed to > a crawl, and that's my opinion: Prototype itself has also slowed down. > Check the dev group if you don't believe me (http://groups.google.com/ > group/prototype-core/topics?hl=en&gvc=2). Two legitimate threads with > posts in 2011, and those being about bugs, not additional development. > > So there's my $0.02+... i feel your frustration, though. > -joe t. > > On Mar 14, 1:53 pm, Walter Lee Davis wrote: > > > > > > > > > Sorry for the rant, but I came to Prototype by way of early > > exploration with Rails. I found Prototype approachable and learn-able > > in a way that I didn't (and don't) find jQuery to be. > > > I've invested years in learning Prototype and it has trained and > > patterned my JavaScript brain. I'm quite cheesed about the notion of > > having to learn another way to look at JavaScript. > > > At the same time, I can't help but
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Rails 3.1 - Prototype = WTF?
I don't often post here, but I've been using Prototype extensively for the last 6 months. Not a day goes by when I don't say something to myself along the lines of "Thank God for Prototype". Perhaps, had I started with J-Query, I'd have said the same thing about it - but I didn't, and I'd like to continue with Prototype. It could very well be the Prototype developers are: bored, busy, broke, out of ideas, or any combination. Maybe instead of just saying things like we'd like Prototype to be more popular and do more things in less space, and be more relevant, etc, someone should create a wish- list page, with a prominent 'Donate Here' button. I don't work for free and don't expect others to either. (I just checked and Prototype's web page does not have a donate button). Programmers all like a challenge, so if we as users can come up with concrete wishes for Prototype then perhaps the developers will take up the challenge. And, Thank God for Prototype! On Mar 14, 10:34 pm, Jason wrote: > I agree and would like to see Prototype start returning to the > forefront as the powerful JS library it is > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Rails 3.1 - Prototype = WTF?
I agree and would like to see Prototype start returning to the forefront as the powerful JS library it is On Mar 14, 10:53 am, Walter Lee Davis wrote: > Sorry for the rant, but I came to Prototype by way of early > exploration with Rails. I found Prototype approachable and learn-able > in a way that I didn't (and don't) find jQuery to be. > > I've invested years in learning Prototype and it has trained and > patterned my JavaScript brain. I'm quite cheesed about the notion of > having to learn another way to look at JavaScript. > > At the same time, I can't help but notice the around here > lately. When I joined this list (back in the rails-spinoff days) there > were dozens of posts per day, now we're lucky to get there in a week. > > What the heck is going on here? > > Walter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Rails 3.1 - Prototype = WTF?
Another anecdote along with Jane's... i make a lot of comparisons to jQuery as well because it's the only other library i've gotten familiar with. i still really like Prototype's robust set of utility & data storage functions. i get wary of storing data directly on elements [jQuery.data()] and sometimes it's simply not appropriate to do so, so having Prototype's pseudo-class structure to drive the overall functionality of a page is very helpful, because i can create "class" members and manage data there, rather than in the HTML area of the DOM. Classes really helped me build complex JS applications when i was still brand new to application-style Javascript & AJAX. That said, Prototype is bloated, and doesn't play nice with others. Scriptaculous is old, just as bloated, and i think 1 or 2 lines of code have been updated in the last year, to provide Pt 1.7 compatibility. Plus Scriptaculous doesn't provide an actual UI, just some enhanced visual effects & other tools. And you have to be careful of a lot of gotchas in those effects because Scriptaculous doesn't wrap your code into HTML & object references that it will need to make those effects work. jQuery's UI does that. One of the bigger advantages of Scriptaculous is Builder. i much prefer creating HTML through a node/tree structure than slapping an HTML string into an element. However, someone went and built a jQuery plugin to do what Builder does. /shrug i've noted elsewhere in this group that i don't like that there are several aliases for many of Prototype's functions, most of which are unnecessary Rails translations for otherwise sensible names. i get that it's supposed to help Rails devs use Prototype efficiently, so why not just keep only the Rails versions of functions and drop the aliases? jQuery tends to provide one way to do a lot of things. Prototype tends to provide a lot of ways to do one thing. i didn't like jQuery at first for all the reasons i stated above for liking Prototype. Once i got the hang of the major differences & slight syntax variations, i've found it to really save time in a lot of ways. Granted, i also haven't built any huge application-level code using jQuery yet, but i feel like i could now that i understand the inner workings better. Jane mentioned event handling. i can go either way with that. Prototype's Function#bind makes it easy to incorporate the Class object into an event handler, but you lose context of the element unless you use Event#findElement. And i really like Event#on, but haven't done any heavy lifting with Prototype since 1.7 was released. So jQuery's handlers work fine for me. i've also never developed with Rails, and maybe because of that i don't feel a particular loyalty. i want the right tool for the job at hand, and lately that has been jQuery. Especially the ease of using plugins for "missing" functionality, and the UI library which amazes me. But to address your actual question: Why has traffic died down in this group? My personal observation would be that jQuery has simply gained traction over the last couple years. Prototype... i don't know. Kinda feels stale, neglected, and maybe a bit stuck in its ways? It seems like there's a lot of push to make JS libraries cooperate with each other so you can get the best each has to offer, yet Prototype can't get itself away from modifying native objects, which forces everyone else to provide safety schemes to accommodate. Also, where most libraries provide compression-safe code, Prototype stays pretty rotund at ~160K. Add Scriptaculous and you can hit 1MB of library before you get to any of your own code. In spite of criticisms, i don't want this to feel like a slam against Prototype. Obviously i still get something out of it or i'd drop my subscription to the groups. But you ask why the traffic has slowed to a crawl, and that's my opinion: Prototype itself has also slowed down. Check the dev group if you don't believe me (http://groups.google.com/ group/prototype-core/topics?hl=en&gvc=2). Two legitimate threads with posts in 2011, and those being about bugs, not additional development. So there's my $0.02+... i feel your frustration, though. -joe t. On Mar 14, 1:53 pm, Walter Lee Davis wrote: > Sorry for the rant, but I came to Prototype by way of early > exploration with Rails. I found Prototype approachable and learn-able > in a way that I didn't (and don't) find jQuery to be. > > I've invested years in learning Prototype and it has trained and > patterned my JavaScript brain. I'm quite cheesed about the notion of > having to learn another way to look at JavaScript. > > At the same time, I can't help but notice the around here > lately. When I joined this list (back in the rails-spinoff days) there > were dozens of posts per day, now we're lucky to get there in a week. > > What the heck is going on here? > > Walter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" grou
