Although I don't wish to speak for John Resig, my understanding is
that jQuery was inspired by Prototype and Moo.fx, but it's not simply
a new implementation of them. IIRC, John initially used Moo.fx as a
base, refactoring it along the way, but even in its earliest
iterations, the effects code diverged quite a bit from Moo.fx. The
whole library has gone through so many rewrites since then that it's
probably safe to say that current versions of Prototype and Mootools
are just as much inspired by jQuery as the other way around. As for
the size difference, it's hard to say exactly where that comes from.
They aren't feature-for-feature analogues. Some code might be terser
in one library than in the other. Some features in one might not be
present in the other. Prototype, for example, has a bunch of methods
that extend native prototypes. jQuery does not. jQuery core includes
some animation features that Prototype delegates to Scriptaculous.
Please take the above comments as impressions only. They are not
official pronouncements. Anything mentioned above should be
corroborated by John Resig (preferably) or another member of the
jQuery team before being quoted or accepted as true.
--Karl
____________
Karl Swedberg
www.englishrules.com
www.learningjquery.com
On Mar 24, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Alaa wrote:
Hi,
I am doing a master thesis about Javascript ajax frameworks, and I
have a question about jQuery framework, and need your answer please.
As I read, jQuery is not a new creation, but it is a new
implementation of existing frameworks like Prototype and Moo.fx. is
that true? if yes, Prototype alone is about 127 KB in size, so , How
is jQuery only 118 KB? or it does not include everything from
Prototype (In addition to Moo.fx).
I hope you have time to answer my questions.
Thanks alot,
Greetings,
