Expanding somewhat on T.J.'s point, i definitely couldn't work without Prototype's data management utilities (Enumerable, Object extensions, etc).
i love jQuery's compactness and efficiency, but with almost no attention to Javascript data, i'd rather sacrifice it's DOM efficiency to have Prototype's data/object manipulation skills. For lightweight websites that don't require a lot of local data treatment, i'll use jQuery because it's fairly easy to get used to, and compact. For anything where i'm retrieving server data or managing data within the client for an app, i stick to Prototype, and i've rarely had occasion for them to overlap. Just my thoughts. It's not a blog, i know, but since you asked... :) joe t. On Jul 6, 12:39 am, "P.J." <pjfontil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks T.J. The "Language" section is definitely a prime example of an > area Prototype excels at where jQuery does little in. My aim is to use > both libraries in a manner that complements each other. Just looking > for positive reinforcement in that idea; looking for specific > strengths each library has. > > On Jul 5, 2:15 am, "T.J. Crowder" <t...@crowdersoftware.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > Just generally speaking, but: If you go to the API reference[1], most > > things in the "Language" section fall into the category of things > > Prototype provides that jQuery doesn't. jQuery has $.each, but most of > > the other stuff in Prototype's Enumerable isn't in jQuery. > > > I _think_ Prototype 1.7 (currently at RC2) has better support for > > querying the layout of elements than jQuery does -- for instance, > > finding out the current pixel value of an "auto" margin. > > > [1]http://api.prototypejs.org/ > > > FWIW, > > -- > > T.J. Crowder > > Independent Software Consultant > > tj / crowder software / comwww.crowdersoftware.com > > > On Jul 4, 6:24 pm, "P.J." <pjfontil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > First off, here's a reference I'd like you to read so you'll > > > understand where I'm coming from.http://jqueryvsmootools.com/ > > > > It's written by Aaron Newton and it's about jQuery and MooTools. Short > > > and sweet, jQuery focuses on the DOM, and does a pretty good job with > > > it; and MooTools focuses on the entire JavaScript language. > > > > Aaron's MooTools is my Prototype. I have a library that uses both > > > jQuery and Prototype. I'm not using Scriptaculous as jQuery can handle > > > most of the UI. I've been using Prototype to parse JSON and retrieve > > > data from external sources, and always consider using it first when I > > > come across something difficult to code. I have both in my library > > > because I wanted to be able to use widgets for both, thus netting me a > > > large variety of widgets and functionality from both camps. > > > > Should I be treating Prototype similar to how Aaron views MooTools? As > > > an extension of the entire JavaScript language as a whole? > > > > Does anyone have any examples of situations where Prototype provides > > > functionality that jQuery doesn't? Mainly, anything outside the UI. > > > jQuery also supports JSON usage, but by using Prototype I can not only > > > parse JSON but XML and other arbitrary data types as well. I wish to > > > re-evaluate my decision to use both in one library, especially if one > > > of my reasons was the usage of plugins from both camps and the other > > > was that Prototype and jQuery serve different purposes. > > > > Please help me out, I always attempt to contribute my findings back to > > > the community and would greatly appreciate it. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptacul...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
