On 28/03/07, Jörn Zaefferer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michel Brouckaert schrieb: > > If you have more time and the project would be a really big one, i > > would advice you to rather use Prototype. Class based designs mostly > > only pay off in huge projects because of reusability. So at the end of > > the line I think it depends... > I think reusing jQuery code by putting it in the form of plugins works > great in "big" projects too. After all, a big project can only work if > its carefully assembled of small parts. And those small parts can be > jQuery plugins. > > Of course there are aspects, mostly domain-specific, that are not well > represented as plugins. But I wouldn't implement those in JavaScript anyway. > > -- > Jörn Zaefferer > > http://bassistance.de
I think JavaScript is mostly use as a way to enhance the user experience and reduce the load on the web server. Pages should not rely on it to work. Although, to be honest, I have done a few pages that need it, but the users are guaranteed to have it enabled (as their either aren't many of them, or the application is used internally). If you are providing information for a wide audience (e.g. health related) then it certainly should not be a requirement as I can imagine there would be issues with accessibility (for those using alternative browsing methods or with JavaScript turned off). When I was initially looking at frameworks, Prototype was one of my first choices, but the lack of documentation put me off. I'm also not keen of the obtrusiveness that it encourages. Others (can't recall which ones) did not look easy to use and / or a bit heavy weight (I don't think Mootools even existed). I wonder what would have happened if jQuery was not created? Prototype may never have been documented and JavaScript libraries in general would not have been as good (competition helps to motivate people). _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
