jQuery Lint
Michael Haufe ("TNO")
http://james.padolsey.com/javascript/jquery-lint/
</flamebait>
A not so subtle hint that something might be wrong with your library?
S.T.
> <flamebait>
> http://james.padolsey.com/javascript/jquery-lint/
> </flamebait>
Looks kind of interesting, particularly for newer programmers or those
not familiar with the jQuery API.
> A not so subtle hint that something might be wrong with your library?
That's quite a leap in logic.
Scott Sauyet
<t...@thenewobjective.com> wrote:
> <flamebait>http://james.padolsey.com/javascript/jquery-lint/
> </flamebait>
Definitely flamebait! :-)
> A not so subtle hint that something might be wrong with your library?
It seems to be a tool to help new users learn things like that
although this code is legal:
$("selector").css("color", "red").css("margin", 0);
This would be more efficient:
$("selector").css({color: "red", margin: 0});
That doesn't indicate anything wrong with the library any more than
any lint program indicates problems with its target environment.
-- Scott
David Mark
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. :)
David Mark
> On Jan 18, 2:09 pm, "Michael Haufe (\"TNO\")"
>
> <t...@thenewobjective.com> wrote:
> > <flamebait>http://james.padolsey.com/javascript/jquery-lint/
> > </flamebait>
>
> Definitely flamebait! :-)
>
> > A not so subtle hint that something might be wrong with your library?
>
> It seems to be a tool to help new users learn things like that
> although this code is legal:
>
> $("selector").css("color", "red").css("margin", 0);
>
> This would be more efficient:
>
> $("selector").css({color: "red", margin: 0});
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.
Scott Sauyet
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!
-- Scott
David Mark
> 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!
>
It has its place.