> ok, so next time i want to code something in jquery i'll just write
> $(make coffee) ?
Haha, now I'm questioning your ambition. This is the holy grail of all
programming, it's almost blasphemy to make fun of it ; ).
> For me (and I really mean not speaking for everyone) it's more
> intuitive if there is an internal logic that I can understand;
Ok, I guess in this case the only "language" we share is jQuery ; ).
Intuition irrational by definition, see:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:intuition.
> No, there are things that are intuitive **once you've understood the
> basics**. IOW intuitiveness is based on your assumptions and your
> knowledge. Why would you assume that .hasClass() exists? And not,
> e.g., isMemberOf() or .classMatches() ? It must depend of what you're
> already familiar with before you switch to jQuery.
I agree with you that people will try to use stuff they know from other
libraries first before falling back to intuition. So what would be two
of the most popular ones to expect?
Mootools:
* includes a hasClass() function:
http://docs.mootools.net/Native/Element.js#Element.hasClass
* includes a remove() function:
http://docs.mootools.net/Native/Element.js#Element.remove
Prototype:
* includes a hasClassName() function:
http://www.prototypejs.org/api/element#method-hasclassname
* includes a remove() function:
http://www.prototypejs.org/api/element/remove
To be fair. Neither Mootools nor Prototype seem to include an exists()
function. This however could also be traced back by the fact that they
do not share the jQuery philosophy in terms of advocating their CSS
selector engine as a) their main element retrieval method and b) don't
use it as a wrapper for chainability.
Anyway I can see your argument about how an exists() function would be
redundant. jQuery has a lot of convenience wrappers for things, but
$.fn.exists = function(){return !!this.length}; would be the smallest
and least functional one. Same is almost true for hasClass (return
this.is('.'+class));. This is where you can convince me with a
rational/scientific argument that those functions aren't needed.
However, as you said this library is more then just code, it's art. And
this is why I'm emphasizing those new functions: They empower the artist
(who does not read the complete docs before getting started) and don't
hurt the scientists ....
What a rant ... haha
Anyway, interesting discussion and good arguments,
-- Felix
--------------------------
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Fil wrote:
>
>> jQuery is a language
>>> It was a library last time I checked ; ).
>
> yeah, well, it can be many things to many people; we all agree it's
> code. I think it's art, too
>
>> Why? For me the sweetest thing about using jQuery has been it's
>> intuitiveness right out of the box.
>
> ok, so next time i want to code something in jquery i'll just write
> $(make coffee) ?
>
> No, there are things that are intuitive **once you've understood the
> basics**. IOW intuitiveness is based on your assumptions and your
> knowledge. Why would you assume that .hasClass() exists? And not,
> e.g., isMemberOf() or .classMatches() ? It must depend of what you're
> already familiar with before you switch to jQuery.
>
> For me (and I really mean not speaking for everyone) it's more
> intuitive if there is an internal logic that I can understand; adding
> stuff that is redundant is merely adding cruft, and hence
> counter-intuitive.
>
> That's why I wanted to add my "I don't agree" message -- though I
> understand and respect your position, I don't share it.
>
> -- Fil
>
