So let me summarize, we create closures for whatever silly purpose but 3 scopes resolutions are a performances problem? Well, I guess we have to re-think 90% of JavaScript stuff here, isn't it?
That "with" was just an example, an elegant one, imho, able to show how things work there and how natural "with" is. A YUI passed version of your code obviously will be smaller, a gzipped of my example ... uhm, not sure though! Namespaces? In JavaScript namespaces are just "objects with properties", same is the dom, object with properties. You prefer namespace examples? That's OK, it does not really change the nature of "with" Who does not like "with"? Crockford for gosh knows which reason, and machines, cause they do not read the code, they parse bytes ... as was for AS and as I have already said, if a language is beautiful, it will be rarely the fastest one 'cause machine do not understand human logic yet. What I like about Python, is that the latest 3000 version preserved best features removing REAL LOGIC BUGS, not just stuff "not that convenient" for the parser. We all need better parsers for what we have, V8 Rules, and a FIXED, STANDARD BEHAVIOR, a dream for every JS developer. Who writes JS itself? Somebody that is not probably even using it on daily basis the language, why should he care about the language, if the purpose is the parser, isn't it? Regards --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
