On Aug 16, 7:39 pm, Mitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <quote>
> jQuery is definitely a popular utility function library, but the sheer
> amount of dual/triple/quadruple special-case uses for both function
> calls and method names is an instant turnoff for me.
This also turns me off to some degree. The main problem i have is that
jQuery(...) can take so many different argument types. In fact,
jQuery(function(){...}) as a shortcut for $(document).ready(function()
{...}) bugs me the most.
> immediate sense, like .one or .eq, and you can't immediately tell if a
> method acts on the first element in the collection or all of them.
i agree that gt(), lt(), eq(), get(), etc, could/should have been more
verbosely named. Shortcuts like lt, gt, etc. may be familiar to people
who use the Unix shell (test 4 -lt 3), but they're simply opaque to
anyone else.
> I can't recommend jQuery to the developers I am mentoring because it
> is in itself a completely separate abstraction
An interesting point - don't recommend jQ IF the point of your work is
teaching JavaScript.
>, and a muddy one at
> that.
Probably over-stated.
> They will end up having to learn jQuery instead of having to
> learn DOM, CSS and JS, and when being considered as a direct
> replacement for those it fails both due to complexity and
> inconsistency."
Again, over-stated.
Summary:
The author has apparently let a couple of relatively minor details get
on his nerves, to the point that he can no longer reconcile his
feelings. i can relate to this - i hate/despise/refuse to use Python
because whitespace is significant in that language (and whitespace
should rarely, if ever, be significant), and its completely naive
approach to implementing package-private data. Technosophically
speaking, i simply cannot excuse those failings of the language, and
refuse to learn it on those grouds. Simon Willison apparently has a
similar hang-up about jQuery. And, like i am in my hate-hate
relationship with Python, he's in the minority.
