John... To be fair...it's very easy to learn the basics of jQuery, but it's quite a lot of work and time to learn the really cool stuff. I've never used eq() or if() and those other because I simply don't understand what they do. I'm sure some of them could improve my code dramatically but I don't even know WHEN I might use them, so I don't know when to look for them. Does that makes sense?
andy -----Original Message----- From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Resig Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 12:53 PM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery negatives: dual/triple/quadruple special-case uses for both function calls and method names I don't understand this argument at all. So this guy is proposing that we change all the jQuery methods to: $Array([array of elems]) $Selector("str") $HTML("html") $Element(DOMElement) and: .appendElement(DOMElement) .appendHTML("html") .appendArray([array of elems]) what on earth does that gain you? What's the purpose of using a language that can overload arguments and not actually using that feature? What's the advantage of increasing the size of your API 4-fold? Incredibly weak argument, obviously someone who's never used the library. > Some method names make no > 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. These arguments are slightly more valid. Although .eq() is going away in 1.2. I really don't know what to say, in this case it was simply a design decision. We could've had: .val() (return nothing, do nothing useful) .val("val") (set value) .getVal() (get value) .getVal("val") (return nothing, do nothing useful) But why have a state of a method perform nothing useful at all? Why not overload it to actually do something? Why double the size of the effective API with half-useful functions? --John On 8/16/07, Mitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What do you guys think of this critique of jQuery I found on Simon > Willison's site (which is good reading). > > http://simonwillison.net/2007/Aug/15/jquery/ > > <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. > > The jQuery object itself can perform a selector query, embed a DOM > element, create a DOM element from HTML and assign a DOMContentReady > event handler - and probably more. Event handling is separated into > separate methods for each event type. Some method names make no > 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 can't recommend jQuery to the developers I am mentoring because it > is in itself a completely separate abstraction, and a muddy one at > that. 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." > > </quote> > > Mitch > >
