> A not so subtle hint that something might be wrong with your library?
Well, sort of. It's not so much the Johnny-come-lastly advisor plug- in, but the fact that it is just another horrible plug-in for an equally bad pile of JS. Anyone who would use jQuery enough to want to write a plug-in is not going to be the best candidate to wtite a browser scripting "lint." I can't see it.
The idea (which is sound) is to warn developers when they are doing something incorrect (or ill-advised). I haven't looked at the code for it (and I'm sure I never will). I find I don't have to do that anymore as the basic rules always apply. :)
Except that neither result will be efficient in any sense of the word. Such "optimization" of jQuery code is a fool's errand. You dump it and replace it with something better (and faster). In this case, something like:
el.style.color = "red"; el.style.margin = '0';
That's smaller, faster, more readable, makes no function calls, creates no new objects and is impervious to upgrades to jQuery (typically poison). And, as we all know, jQuery doesn't work worth a shit anyway as the "logic" in the script is mostly a diary of confused browser watchers. Get the picture?
> That doesn't indicate anything wrong with the library any more than > any lint program indicates problems with its target environment.
Of course, you don't need a lint to see what is wrong with the library. It's as obviously unsuitable as a dissertation written in crayon.
On Jan 20, 9:58 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 3:39 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That doesn't indicate anything wrong with the library any more than >> any lint program indicates problems with its target environment.
> Of course, you don't need a lint to see what is wrong with the > library.
As said, the post was definitely flamebait! :-)
> It's as obviously unsuitable as a dissertation written in crayon.
:-)
I met someone who did that. Literally. Or so she claimed. Of course her paper was on how to creatively integrate art education into pre- school and Kindergarten programs. It was filled with many colorful illustrations. Her adviser loved it, and so did most of the committee. But she did eventually have to submit a more formal version. So much for creativity!
On Jan 20, 12:47 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 9:58 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 3:39 pm, Scott Sauyet <scott.sau...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That doesn't indicate anything wrong with the library any more than > >> any lint program indicates problems with its target environment.
> > Of course, you don't need a lint to see what is wrong with the > > library.
> As said, the post was definitely flamebait! :-)
Yes, truth in labeling here.
> > It's as obviously unsuitable as a dissertation written in crayon.
> :-)
> I met someone who did that. Literally. Or so she claimed. Of course > her paper was on how to creatively integrate art education into pre- > school and Kindergarten programs. It was filled with many colorful > illustrations. Her adviser loved it, and so did most of the > committee. But she did eventually have to submit a more formal > version. So much for creativity!
