brook,
I am not sure if i will add substantially to what others have said above.
Still, i wanted to post this mail anyways because you might be more
comfortable making a decision if you hear an opinion from a normal user as
opposed to a core developer.
My background in javascript follows the pattern, javascript -> prototype ->
mootools -> jquery, and in that order. I have also played with libraries
like YUI, Ext, Rico and GWT just to get a feel for them, but the first 3
libraries are where i have good expertise in...
I started using prototype because, that seemed to be the best solution then.
It was a well thought out library as opposed to other DHTML gimmicks out
there. It was backed by a thorough and beautiful scriptaculous effects
library. Although prototype had zero documentation, i still chose them for
the quality of the library itself. I sincerely started decoding the source
night after night and a week later, i had a comprehensive personal
documentation(which ofcourse only i could understand). I used them for a
while - Until one day when i found mootools.
I was jumping for joy, not because mootools had a radically different
approach(coz they don't) and not because they had clear documentation(coz
they didn't), but because it was so small in size. This was a welcome gift,
and i took it - after all it is free. They had a few bells and whistles as
in, new and improved inheritance support etc etc etc., but the best of all,
the syntax they offered was almost similar to prototype. I was very happy
with them, and will continue to be. I still use both prototype and mootools
in different projects and i love them both.
But, one fine morning my feed reader was forcing me to read a blog about
jquery. I initially resisted, coz, i thought it was related to database.
Then for some odd reason, i read it. It was someones blog ( i don't remember
who), and i had mixed feelings. Being the experimenter i am, i started
playing with it, and trust me, within one day, i felt like an expert. It
sure was a radically different approach to modern javascript and the
documentation was clean and simple. Then i subscribed to the mailing list
and started talking to people here, and man trust me, i haven't been in such
a helpful community.
Although my initial impressions were that it might not be as extensive as
the other 2, those doubts subsided when i realized the simplicity of the
plugin architecture. There are plugins for almost everything and every
plugin is so darn small and inviting. In the rare case where fellow
community members didn't find a plugin for their needs, i have seen plugin
authors write a plugin in a matter of hours and throw it in for them to use.
With jQuery it is that easy. Everything seems so simple. I now can't
remember why i used to hate javascript so much.
Now, from time to time, when i go back to prototype or mootools to support
my existing projects i really do feel that the code base looks complex.
After using jquery every other library looks complex to me. So be warned. If
you were to lose one thing by choosing jquery it is that, you might forget
plain javascript and other libraries sooner rather than later. Then don't
blame, coz i am no different than you then.
If you made this far, i am sorry for such a long email, but i just couldn't
help telling you my story for your benefit. My best wishes.
-GTG
On 8/4/07, Dragan Krstic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> BMHO, jquery is easier to learn and doesn't extends native JS objects. jQ
> people is more enthusiatsic about library they use. Also, jQuery put
> standards in speed, documentation and support. By introducing jQuery, John
> forced other folks to improve their libraries. And comunity is very
> devoted, too.
>
>
> 2007/8/5, John Resig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >
> > > I can see the benefit of this being that you only include the methods
> > you need and there is no bloat.
> >
> > That's precisely why. Here's examples of everything that you mentioned:
> >
> > disable:
> > $("input").attr("disabled","disabled");
> >
> > enable:
> > $("input").attr("disabled","");
> >
> > findFirstElement:
> > $("form :input:first")
> >
> > focusFirstElement:
> > $("form :input:first").focus();
> >
> > getElements:
> > $("form :input")
> >
> > getInputs:
> > $("form :input")
> >
> > request:
> > (via Form plugin)
> > $("form").ajaxSubmit()
> >
> > reset:
> > $("form").reset()
> >
> > serialize:
> > $("form :input").serialize()
> >
> > serializeElements:
> > $("form :input").serialize()
> >
> > Obviously there are philosophical differences at play - but the fact
> > all of these things exist (or are easily accessed via a plugin) just
> > shows how powerful and extensible jQuery is.
> >
> > Of course, I'm quite biased in this matter, but I'm really proud of the
> > library.
> >
> > > But I just recently read that you can get a compressed prototype
> > library down to 26k - so isn't that almost the same as jQuery?
> >
> > Just to clarify: These custom compressed versions of Prototype are not
> > official, nor are they supported. The Prototype team just says to use
> > them at your own risk. All compressed builds of jQuery are built and
> > supported by the jQuery team (of which, jQuery is around 20k -- and
> > yet still includes animations, meaning that you don't need the
> > overhead of Scriptaculous either, which is another 15k).
> >
> > --John
> >
> > On 8/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am trying to decide on a JS framework for my website and I am
> > > looking at jQuery and prototype. While, I understand there are many
> > > philisophical differences between the implementations, it looks like
> > > to me one of the big differences are all of the new functions
> > > available in prototype.
> > >
> > > What I am curious about, is does jQuery have support for these things
> > > or in jQuery are you basically expected to use the easy access to DOM
> > > objects to create the functionality you need as you go.
> > >
> > > For example, in prototype, adds these methods to the form element
> > > (http://www.prototypejs.org/api/form
> > > ):
> > >
> > > disable enable findFirstElement focusFirstElement getElements
> > > getInputs request reset serialize serializeElements
> > >
> > > Does jQuery have anything similar? In jQuery would you just write
> > > these yourself? I can see the benefit of this being that you only
> > > include the methods you need and there is no bloat. But I just
> > > recently read that you can get a compressed prototype library down to
> > > 26k - so isn't that almost the same as jQuery?
> > >
> > > I guess I am just looking for a reason to use jQuery vs. Prototype and
> >
> > > an argument about why I don't need all those (useful?) methods
> > > available in prototype? Anyone?
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dragan Krstić krdr
> http://krdr.ebloggy.com/
