Ajaxian--dumber than dirt?
David Mark
Really one for the books (or book anyway). ;)
Matt Kruse
> http://groups.google.com/group/my-library-general-discussion/browse_t...
> Really one for the books (or book anyway). ;)
If your goal is to see increased adoption of what you consider to be a
technically better library, you're doing it wrong.
Matt Kruse
S.T.
> http://groups.google.com/group/my-library-general-discussion/browse_thread/thread/d64b751ae6f52b61/4032f3e0393049ad?hl=en#4032f3e0393049ad
>
> Really one for the books (or book anyway). ;)
(yawn) Just more javascript martyrdom out of you.
Too bad, assuming your library is actually useful. If a tree falls in
the woods....
SteveYoungGoogle
It's the usual garbage:
"All JavaScript libraries are rubbish, I'll write a really good one"
"All JavaScript books are rubbish. I'll write a really good one"
"Dojo is the best JavaScript library. I'll make it really good"
Nothing came of any of this so now we're back at:
"All JavaScript libraries are rubbish, I'll write a really good one"
It'll be the book next.
Steve.
David Mark
> On 1/13/2010 9:56 PM, David Mark wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/my-library-general-discussion/browse_thread/thread/d64b751ae6f52b61/4032f3e0393049ad?hl=en#4032f3e0393049ad
>>
>>
>> Really one for the books (or book anyway). ;)
>
> (yawn) Just more javascript martyrdom out of you.
What does that mean? :)
>
> Too bad, assuming your library is actually useful. If a tree falls in
> the woods....
Nobody hears it (except you). ;)
David Mark
> On Jan 14, 5:41 pm, Matt Kruse <m...@thekrusefamily.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 9:56 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/my-library-general-discussion/browse_t...
>>> Really one for the books (or book anyway). ;)
>> If your goal is to see increased adoption of what you consider to be a
>> technically better library, you're doing it wrong.
>>
>
> It's the usual garbage:
> "All JavaScript libraries are rubbish, I'll write a really good one"
Virtually all JavaScript (sic) libraries are rubbish. Ask almost anyone
who writes JS for a living. And I wrote a really good one years ago. A
little spit and polish over the last week has proven it's a
world-beater. Do you really think YUI or Sproutcore or whatever is
going to translate to mobile devices, refrigerators, browsers in cars,
etc.? They can't even get IE right. ;)
> "All JavaScript books are rubbish. I'll write a really good one"
Virtually all JS books are rubbish. Ask almost anyone who writes JS for
a living. And I am writing a really good one. I'm not following this
at all.
> "Dojo is the best JavaScript library. I'll make it really good"
I never said that Dojo was a library or the best anything. I did make
it really good, but progress is very slow on those projects. They are
trying to figure it out (God love 'em). :)
> Nothing came of any of this so now we're back at:
Nothing came of any of these three things? I think you should look
again. Or just skulk back to the jQuery group (where you actually fit in).
Say hi to SteveYoungTBird for me.
David Mark
My goal is none of your concern. Thanks.
And if _you_ don't know it is a technically better library (by about a
million miles at this point), then you are doing something wrong (like
not paying attention). Calling it "technically netter" is really
selling it short, don't you think? It's almost entirely unlike any JS
library ever published on the Web (or anywhere AFAIK). Feel free to
produce anything remotely resembling it. Take all the time you want,
patch jQuery until your fingers fall off and you still won't be close.
It's not a matter of the code, but the ideas and you've always been a
little short in that department (and don't get me started on Resig).
Matt Kruse
> Calling it "technically netter" is really
> selling it short, don't you think?
[sic]
No. Technical quality is just one of many factors.
I eliminated MooTools from consideration years ago based purely on the
attitude of the author.
Matt Kruse