Where am I blaming the jQuery ? I was not clear enough.
I suggest my strategy. Unashamedly.
Task : help to the company which tried to switch to jQuery but
failed.
1. have ready: jquery.1.3.2.safe.slow.js (with all the gotchas you can
think off, added )
2. impose it
3. when dust settles on the battlefiled switch back to jquery.1.3.2.js
Job done
-- DBJ
On May 18, 3:14 pm, Ricardo <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone works within the constraints of his knowledge and tools. Not
> protecting code from Object.prototype (yet) has been a design decision
> to not sacrify performance just to tolerate bad practice, afaik.
>
> From your other example, do you think car companies should limit the
> car's max speed to avoid complaints? I don't think so.
>
> You're repeatedly complaining about jQuery's intolerance on bad code
> and flexibility at the same time. The only issue at play here is the
> lack of understanding of the library, javascript and debugging by
> those you mention. I mean, you're blaming jQuery on "below
> intermediate" coder's errors, that's like blaming the car for a bad
> driver. Fix that and everything will be fine, or just forget trying to
> push the library onto unwilling developers. jQuery has few
> restrictions, just reading the docs is enough to adapt, have they?
>
> cheers
>
> On May 17, 8:51 pm, DBJDBJ <dbj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > @Andrea
>
> > Here is a very nice and very recent example of what am I talking
> > about, please find it in the thread : "Error in attr when adding
> > function to Object.prototype Options " ...
>
> > The proverbial Object.prototype ;o) Please go and explain to the
> > developer who started this thread, why is jQuery not to blame that it
> > does not work in presence of Object.prototype abuse.
> > He is blaming jQuery and everyone who tried to explain why is there no
> > logic in extending Object.prototype. He will rather have it, and not
> > use the jQuery.
>
> > I (usually) do not waste time in that kind of discussions and just
> > place: for ( var j in Object,prototype ) delete Object.prototype[j] ;
> > on the top of "my" jQuery file. Which then I impose ;o)
>
> > --DBJ
>
> > On May 17, 2:46 pm, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > jQuery is a library, not a language ... new $ where $ return a new
> > > something
> > > else is allowed by JavaScript specs ... it is not an error, syntax
> > > speaking,
> > > it is just like people using whatever.toString() rather than "" + whatever
> > > ... you are creating a drama over a truly simple and common mistake for
> > > unskilled JS developers but still, it does not harm anybody and if the
> > > application does not work is not because of new $.
>
> > > I am sure you have hundreds of valid arguments about their bad practices,
> > > but tell them that their code is crap and cannot work because new $ is
> > > allowed ( by JavaScript itself, it is NOT jQuery ) is an error as well.
>
> > > It is not about JavaScript panorama only, there are crap developers for
> > > evey
> > > languages and actually truly skilled developers are rare but nobody cares
> > > that much ... I see horrors in famouse PHP CMS every day but these CMS are
> > > famous .... I have seen crappy logic in pieces of Zend Framework but it is
> > > suppose to be enterprise .... I cannot blame anybody using a programming
> > > language in a bad way as long as results are somehow reached ... I agree
> > > that this would have been a better world if every paid developers was
> > > truly
> > > senior but I cannot find a single argument in this thread about jQuery,
> > > sorry.
>
> > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:00 PM, DBJDBJ <dbj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Allow me to be very clear:
>
> > > > Issue is in MOUNTAIN of legacy javascript/css/html ... Company X
> > > > decides to improve its "portal" or whatever horrid pile of sugar they
> > > > might have amassed, and then yet another team is made to do it. Which
> > > > usually consist of visual basic/delphi/sql/asp "developers" who are
> > > > all avid followers of jQuery. They simply include jQuery in these
> > > > pages , and then ... nothing works. Then they struggle for approx few
> > > > weeks and just then they declare that jQuery is "very bad" and then
> > > > they either revert back to ASP or JSP or whatever horros you can think
> > > > of. But. Minority admits they need to learn a bit more and then they
> > > > call people in to help them out.
> > > > This is where we usaly come in. And this is where we use my version of
> > > > jQuery to show them where are they making mistakes and for us to
> > > > understand what is going on.
> > > > And then "fun" starts when the legacy code has to be removed/destroyed/
> > > > forgotten. In those moments I would like Ricardo and Andrea to stand
> > > > in front of these (by now highly annoyed) managers and developers and
> > > > tell them :
>
> > > > ".. jQuery does it work as it's supposed to, it's not it's duty to
> > > > enforce
> > > > good practices ... or alert users of javascript syntax errors..."
>
> > > > What is the issues here is the jQ usage patterns not jQ itself. And
> > > > this is a very big mountain to climb for a very big portion of
> > > > developers. Number of people who are beyond intermediate skills in
> > > > javascript+css, is in reality very very small ...
>
> > > > -- DBJ
>
> > > > On May 16, 12:17 pm, Ricardo <ricardob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Well, you shouldn't let your clients mess with your javascript, minify
> > > > > it before deploying. Anything that happens is their own problem - that
> > > > > is, if you're not hired to do it.
>
> > > > > jQuery does it work as it's supposed to, it's not it's duty to enforce
> > > > > good practices (wishful thinking) or alert users of javascript syntax
> > > > > errors.
>
> > > > > On May 15, 8:03 pm, DBJDBJ <dbj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I have only clients no boses, who blame it on jQuery .... until they
> > > > > > are caught that is ;o)
> > > > > > I am catching them with jQ version I have "adorned" with this kind
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > checks like the one we are discussing here.
> > > > > > You will be amazed (same as me) what are javascript/css/html
> > > > > > newcomers
> > > > > > capable of doing.
> > > > > > One more check I am going to add is this one to stop them doing new
> > > > > > $
> > > > > > () ...
>
> > > > > > Thanks
>
> > > > > > --DBJ
>
> > > > > > On May 15, 10:43 am, Andrea Giammarchi <andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Tell your head of "whatever" that a title in a contract does not
> > > > necessary
> > > > > > > mean extraordinary skills and if he would like to improve his
> > > > JavaScript
> > > > > > > knowledge he is more than welcome in this ml ( probably more as
> > > > reader ... )
> > > > > > > anyway ...
>
> > > > > > > function init(selector, context){
> > > > > > > if(this instanceof jQuery)
> > > > > > > throw new Error( jQuery.error_code, "Can not new $()");
> > > > > > > return new jQuery.fn.init(selector, context);
>
> > > > > > > };
>
> > > > > > > function jQuery(selector, context) {
> > > > > > > return jQuery.fast ?
> > > > > > > new jQuery.fn.init(selector, context) :
> > > > > > > init.call(this, selector, context)
> > > > > > > ;
>
> > > > > > > };
>
> > > > > > > Conditional is a bit faster than an if but still it is something
> > > > > > > that
> > > > does
> > > > > > > not make sense because as I said the nature of the jQuery
> > > > > > > callback is
> > > > dual (
> > > > > > > both function/constructor ... it does not matter which way you
> > > > > > > call
> > > > it, the
> > > > > > > result will always be an instance of jQuery, if "you" like weist
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > writing an alread implicit "new" everywhere, it cannot be a jQuery
> > > > issue, do
> > > > > > > you agree? )
>
> > > > > > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Daniel Friesen
> > > > > > > <nadir.seen.f...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > ;) I still see an if statement there, heh.
>
> > > > > > > > I prefer the conditional comments + build system approach.
>
> > > > > > > > ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [
> > > >http://daniel.friesen.name]
>
> > > > > > > > DBJDBJ wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "... If a user uses new $ this user simply does not truly
> > > > understand/
> > > > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > JavaScript but fortunately will not harm anybody..."
>
> > > > > > > > > No it wont, unless this user is a team leader and starts
> > > > > > > > > blaming
> > > > > > > > > jQuery on everything.
> > > > > > > > > And this happens much more than anyone here (it seems)
> > > > > > > > > realises.
> > > > > > > > > But. This is another subject.
>
> > > > > > > > > PS:
>
> > > > > > > > > jQuery.fast = false ;
> > > > > > > > > jQuery.error_code = 0xABCD ;
>
> > > > > > > > > function(selector, context) {
> > > > > > > > > if ( ! jQuery.fast)
> > > > > > > > > if(this instanceof jQuery)
> > > > > > > > > throw new Error(
> > > > > > > > > jQuery.error_code,
> > > > "Can
> > > > > > > > > not new $()");
> > > > > > > > > return new jQuery.fn.init(selector, context);
> > > > > > > > > }
>
> > > > > > > > > On May 14, 2:59 pm, Andrea Giammarchi <
> > > > andrea.giammar...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> to do that you need to change the contructor:
>
> > > > > > > > >> function(selector, context) {
> > > > > > > > >> if(this instanceof jQuery)
> > > > > > > > >> throw new Error("Can not new $()");
> > > > > > > > >> return new jQuery.fn.init(selector, context);
>
> > > > > > > > >> }
>
> > > > > > > > >> this means an extra if for each jQuery call, something not
> > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > welcome
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> performances reason. At the same time, jQuery itself relies
> > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > >> JavaScript peculiarity, so I would not create "conflicts"
> > > > between jQuery
> > > > > > > > >> developers and users.
>
> > > > > > > > >> If a user uses new $ this user simply does not truly
> > > > understand/know
> > > > > > > > >> JavaScript but fortunately will not harm anybody.
>
> > > > > > > > >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:23 AM, DBJDBJ <dbj...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >>> Ah, new $, is possible and therefore not barred ... Left in
> > > > there as a
> > > > > > > > >>> sort of a land-mine for the newcomers ? Or as an esoteric
> > > > > > > > >>> test
> > > > for GC
> > > > > > > > >>> developers ? Highly useless it seems to me.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jquery-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
