I have heard nice things about Mochikit. I had a look at it a long time ago and fully intended to get involved but haven't had the opportunity yet ...
http://www.mochikit.com/about.html esatterwh...@wi.rr.com wrote: > I use mootools a lot. When I was deciding which on to use, I first > looked at How big is the library ( how long is it going to take me to > learn ), how complex, does it do what I want/need. Does it fit the way > I think, does it make sense with python/django. > > Mootools, to me was a pretty good fit. The descriptor of mootools > was,'It's not about cows or milk! It stands for My Object Orientated > Tools" > > The best thing about mootools is the Class implementation. It really > turns a muddy scripting language into a more OO lang like python. You > can create new classes & objects which can inherit from each other, > etc. Going from python to mootools is easy as you don't have such a > big shift in gears. > > There is also project that can convert your python code directly to > mootools javascript. > http://code.google.com/p/pygowave-server/wiki/PythonToJavaScriptTranslator > > Also, while a topic of much debate, one of mootools strengths and > consequently it's weakness is that it extends some of the naitive > objects in javascript. This makes coding faster and easier. However, > the down side is that it doesn't really play well with some other > javascript libraries. Personal experience has pointed out jquery and > the 2.X versions of the YUI ( at least with out some patching ). > But it has a host of built in methods for working with Javascripts > native objects that just make life easier. > > I would really miss the Classes and ease/speed at which you can create > applications. > > As of late Mootools has been under a pretty big surge in development. > in the last 5-6 months it has gone from 1.2 to 1.2.4.1 and is on the > verge of 2.0, so their has been a little frustration with backward > compatibility and change in some syntax. But they have all previous > versions on github making it pretty easy to stick with 1 version. > > Obviously a little biased, but that's my 2 cents. > > On Sep 28, 8:37 am, Joshua Russo <josh.r.ru...@gmail.com> wrote: >> MooTools does look interesting. What would you miss most about it, if you >> had to develop without it? >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:07 AM, justind <justin.don...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Joshua, >>> Take a look at MooTools. It's a great library with a great API. It's >>> been said that JQuery makes the DOM fun, but MooTools makes Javascript >>> fun. >>> On Sep 28, 4:37 am, Joshua Russo <josh.r.ru...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:00 AM, Jani Tiainen <rede...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Joshua Russo kirjoitti: >>>>>> Great links guys, thanks. I'm still in the mindset of frameworks just >>>>>> making JavaScript less painful too and I'm looking for ways to move >>>>>> beyond that. I just started looking at Dojo before posting this and >>> it >>>>>> definitely looks like it has potential. >>>>> I'm pretty "heavy" user of Dojo. My project is completely built on top >>>>> of Django/Dojo using JSON-RPC to do talk with Django part. >>>>> I'm pretty happy how it works, specially declarative way to make >>> widgets >>>>> is pretty cool comparing to other that usually require JS markup to >>>>> achieve same thing. >>>>> Dojango is pretty nice. I just don't use (model)forms all. >>>> Do you use the Admin app at all? Or are your sites all just custom views? > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
