Hi Morris,
On Mar 21, 8:03 am, Morris Gray <[email protected]> wrote: > > Please note I am just thinking out loud and possibly overlooking many > things but isn't using jQuery just putting another learning curve > between Javascript and Javascript. > Could it be the seduction of more and more capabilities is putting a > greater gap between TiddlyWiki and real world applications rather than > otherwise? Is the engineering of the product becoming an end in itself > with the final application being of lesser importance, and traveling > expectantly becoming better than arriving? Perhaps Occam's Razor > should be considered about now:-) I don't think its about capabilities. Check out the link to the thread in the development forum in the original post. On the face of it, javascript should be just about the easiest language anywhere. Loose typing. Automatic variable creation. Easy object model (as long as you're not interested in real classes). The problem is the multitudinous ways it behaves in different browsers, on different platforms. Browsers and platforms that are always changing. IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari on Linux, Windows, Macs. Each with various version numbers. TW has code to help smooth out the differences between javascript systems, but jquery is considered to be more robust. Chaining the plugin code to jquery means fewer worries for the developers going forward. Or at least that's how I read it. > Keep in mind had the Luddites been successful everyone would be > employed now. Luddites rule! -- Mark --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/TiddlyWiki?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
