Sorry for the digression, but what about YUI 3? Regards, BG
--- Sent from phone. Please excuse brevity. On Jul 24, 2011 9:32 PM, "Mark Rathwell" <mark.rathw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago that you were arguing that everything > should be more like Java? Now you're arguing that Google Closure is bad > because it has some similarities to Java development (mainly verbosity and > documentation). I'm honestly not sure if you are just trying to be > controversial, or to appear smart, but I'll bite (time for a break anyways). > > Closure is not idomatic javascript: > --- > > Do you have an actual argument from experience here, or are you > regurgitating what you've read in articles like [1]. Is CoffeeScript > idiomatic javascript? How about Dojo? SproutCore? jQuery? What exactly > is idiomatic javascript? > > vs. jQuery: > --- > > jQuery is awesome for adding dynamicity and ajaxy stuff to page based web > apps, I don't think anyone argues that. And it is extrememly simple, not > even requiring the user to know any javascript to use it. This is why it is > so (deservedly) popular. > > Large scale, single page applications are a different thing than page based > sites, however. Writing these types of apps with only jQuery quickly turns > to spaghetti. There are some nice libraries/frameworks out there, like > Backbone and Underscore, that do a very nice job of making it cleaner and > scalable. These are all still fairly young though, to be fair. > > In the realm of proven environments for large scale, client side javascript > development, you have Dojo and Google Closure, and to some degree SproutCore > and Cappuccino. If you can point me to larger scale apps than GMail, Google > Docs, etc., written using jQuery, I will gladly have a look. > > Once you get to that scale, you really needing a way to organize code, to > package and load modules, etc. Dojo and Closure offer a pretty nice, and > proven, system for this. > > So, yes, I would have preferred Dojo, because I am more familiar. But to be > fair, Closure is very similar, is a very complete library, and has very good > documentation and examples for the most part. > > [1] http://www.sitepoint.com/google-closure-how-not-to-write-javascript/ > > - Mark > > > On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 11:19 AM, James Keats <james.w.ke...@gmail.com >wrote: > >> >> Alright, to be honest, I'm disappointed. >> >> First of all, congrats and good job to all involved in putting it out. >> On the plus side, it's a good way to use the Google Closure javascript >> platform. >> >> On the minus, imho, that's what's wrong with it. >> >> Google Closure is too Java. It's not idiomatic JavaScript. I find it >> disappointing that rather than porting from a functional language like >> Clojure straight to another functional language like Javascript, the >> google closure with its ugly Java-isms is right there obnoxiously in >> the middle. >> >> Then, there's the elephant in the room, and that elephant is Jquery. I >> believe any targetting-javascript tool that misses out on jquery-first- >> and-foremost is missing out on the realities of javascript in 2011. >> Jquery is huge in its community and plugins, and it has tons of books >> and tutorials. In much the same way that you can have lots of libs on >> the JVM, there are lots of plugins for jquery. So much so that the >> latest edition of Javascript: the Definitive Guide includes a chapter >> on it; quoted: >> >> "Because the jQuery library has become so widely used, web developers >> should be fa- >> miliar with it: even if you don’t use it in your own code, you are >> likely to encounter it >> in code written by others." >> >> Then, the Google Closure compiler is a moot point. Everyone by now >> already has a copy of jquery from the Google CDN and linking to it in >> your code will not download it any further after your first visit to a >> website that does so. In any case, it's already small and fast. >> >> Then there's rhino/jvm. I would much rather an in-browser focus. >> >> I'm tempted to "fork" clojurescript and redo it in javascript perhaps >> so that seamless interop with jquery would be the main priority. >> >> Discuss? >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Clojure" group. >> To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com >> Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with >> your first post. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
