I haven't used mootools or jquery that much but I'm interested in both frameworks. I don't know much about the mootools community, joining this group a few days ago after finding it on Aaron's site. What's the issue at stake here? Is there a problem with the mootools community? It's évident to me that jquery has a far larger user base and a larger support community but it never occurred to me that the mootools community was dying. All I've noticed is that there is a far longer tail of jquery articles on the Web, so it's much easier to find specific solutions to specific problems for jquery. Like I said, don't know terribly much about the framework but it seems rather interesting. What's the deal here? On 14 Mar 2013 16:26, "Aaron Newton" <anut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> nice Eric! > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Eric Patrick <epatr...@quandis.com>wrote: > >> I'll hire a few MooTools devs. >> >> My apologies if a hiring post is inappropriate in this forum. >> >> Please contact me directly @ patrick.e...@gmail.com if you're >> interested. We're located in Foothill Ranch, CA, and built B2B sites >> (primarily in the banking sector) based on a "home-rolled" framework that >> uses MooTools. (The server side is ASP.NET / C#, SQL server back end.) >> Working remotely is possible, but not preferable, so if you're in the >> Irvine area, that's ideal. >> >> Job tasks: >> >> - Build and extend Moo-based behaviors, such as integrating our data >> with Google Visualization APIs, geocoding and complex form validators >> - Abstract client specific requirements into generic patterns that >> can be encapsulated as behaviors >> - Extend Jasmine helpers to facilitate development of test scripts >> - Re-factor our existing behaviors to contribute back to the Moo >> community >> >> --- >> >> My company has the same issues you are describing here: an interesting >> framework, without widespread adoption. I suppose that leaves me with the >> flexibility to choose a js framework for the 'right' technical reasons, >> since I'll never find a developer with experience in our overall framework. >> >> Far more importantly, I want to hire people who engage in the Moo >> community / choose the Mootools framework because such engagement is far >> more likely to indicate a critical thinking skill set that we want to hire >> than engaging in the jQuery community is likely to indicate. >> >> There's some irony in the 'businesses can't build on top of it' reasoning >> :-) >> >> Eric Patrick >> >> >> On Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:14:19 AM UTC-4, Nutron wrote: >> >>> I realize that we are basically now trolling each other, which I don't >>> intend. I love MooTools! >>> >>> But I'm also pragmatic. Here's what's not great about MooTools (this is >>> a list of shame for me, to some extent): >>> >>> - If you're a MooTools expert, you're probably not going to find a >>> job where they use it. Half of the dev team now works at Facebook and >>> they >>> don't get to use MooTools. MooTools devs have gone to twitter, to >>> Spottify, >>> and elsewhere and to my knowledge, only those doing their own thing are >>> using it (i.e. almost none of them). >>> - Businesses can't build on top of it. For every 1 MooTools user >>> there's 10,000 jQuery users. This means that you can't hire anyone to >>> build >>> on it. Yes, 90% of those 10K jQuery users are not real programmers, but >>> sometimes you don't need a real programmer (sometimes a designer who can >>> get by will do) and, when you do, that remaining 10% of the jQuery users >>> that ARE programmers are still a dramatically larger talent pool than the >>> MooTools users out there. >>> - Hardcore JS talent - people who actively go look for 100% >>> JavaScript jobs - don't tend to use frameworks like MooTools so much. The >>> ones out there building w/ node have a whole ecosystem of tools and >>> MooTools isn't one of them. Here I'm thinking of Guillermo Rauch ( >>> http://www.devthought.com/) doing his own startup that he founded >>> built on top of node. Guess what: the UI is jQuery. Why? Because it's the >>> least interesting part of the work. >>> - MooTools is so awesome, but it's become academic. It's something >>> that people who found it in 2006 or 2007 still use. I personally approve >>> every applicant for access to this google group (to avoid spam) and the >>> number of people signing up for it now are 2 to 4 a month. That's not a >>> growing community. >>> >>> I don't say all these things to make you feel like the sky is falling or >>> that your favorite framework is dead (it isn't). But rather to show you >>> that if you want it to be a relevant framework you have to step up and >>> lead. If you think MooTools needs something to be competitive, go make it... >>> >>> -a >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Sanford Whiteman >>> <sa...@figureone.com>wrote: >>> >>>> > That's not to say it's better code (I don't think it is), but it's a >>>> > more successful product in almost every way. >>>> >>>> I can't remember ever _celebrating my use_ of a product that has >>>> crappy internals when I know I'm using it just because "most people >>>> do." >>>> >>>> There is nothing, absolutely nothing to recommend the jQuery way of >>>> coding over the MooTools way. You can grit your teeth and use jQ, keep >>>> a poker face and use jQ, or you can go your own way, but _celebrating_ >>>> going over to the mainstream is just trolling us. It's like radio-rap >>>> braggadocio, where only fame, money, and lies matter. MooTools, like >>>> other boutique frameworks, is dead as much as underground rap is dead. >>>> As in, check your perspective. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I couldn't care less about people choosing to use lamestream >>>> technology, but their reasons for doing so have to be _really_ >>>> original to merit ad hominem "put a fork in your language/ >>>> framework/OS" posts into a community newsgroup. We wouldn't stand for >>>> it on PHP internals, they wouldn't stand for it on >>>> comp.lang.javascript, etc. so why here? >>>> >>>> > In short, if you don't want MooTools to continue to be less and less >>>> > relevant in this market, it's on YOU to make something better than >>>> > jQuery. If you aren't willing to do that, moving to jQuery isn't a >>>> > bad idea at all. >>>> >>>> Using MooTools is still a way to keep it relevant and I would never >>>> recommend "go to jQ unless you can fork or supersede Moo." I really >>>> don't get that point. I'm sure launching a funded startup powered by >>>> Moo, with custom classes doing the heavy lifting, and blogging about >>>> your technology choice does plenty to keep it relevant (got some cash >>>> lying around?). And with more than one front-end dev, you can put more >>>> pressure on for bugfixes and updates because I find big projects >>>> demand features-as-intended instead of backing out features when the >>>> framework puts up a block. >>>> >>>> I concede that in my own projects I will write pure JS to work around >>>> Moo gaps without pushing anything to the public. I'm looking at a >>>> function called "getFirstXML" I wrote to do cross-browser stuff that >>>> Moo couldn't do. *hangs head* I shouldn't do that, I should wrap it >>>> up, test it better, send a pull request. But, like most Moo diehards, >>>> I am an above-average user of plain JS -- even if I'm no expert -- so >>>> I'm not going to go wailing to SO if I have a problem. Yet I suppose I >>>> am selfish enough to not contribute core code. That's why I help out >>>> on this list so much, because I find it more rewarding even if it >>>> often takes more time. Stupid, yes... but none of my mistakes directly >>>> make jQuery any better, and if I give $n amount of time, I think >>>> helping people here as fast and as much as I can is helping us seem >>>> alive. >>>> >>>> As for frameworks that are better than jQuery and newer than MooTools, >>>> well, just about anything that's gained a following over the past >>>> 18-24 months (knockout, underscore, et al.) is interesting to me. Yet >>>> still "nobody" uses them compared to jQuery. Then again, "nobody" uses >>>> my favorite boutique PHP frameworks and I don't care. If I start using >>>> Zend or whatever I'm "supposed" to be using, I can't see cheering >>>> myself on. >>>> >>>> And jQuery agitated for n00b acceptance from the get-go, as I noted >>>> above. It was destined to be bigger, as PHP was destined to be bigger >>>> than ASP.NET (and that gap is rising). It's not that remarkable and we >>>> shouldn't close up shop just because the Microsoft Bob of frameworks >>>> reigns supreme. >>>> >>>> -- S. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "MooTools Users" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to mootools-user...@**googlegroups.com. >>>> >>>> For more options, visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MooTools Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to mootools-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MooTools Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to mootools-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MooTools Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mootools-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
