http://www.apex-wowguild.com/dev/javascript/ajax.js
This is a example. I can create a object and then modify it based on the user interaction. If i can not store this as an object i would need to write code to create each different option the user can do instead of just modifying this one object based on user input, it which case make the javascript code i need to write a lot shorter. bmsterling wrote: > > Eridius, > If you do a search in the group ( > http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/search?group=jquery-en&q=mootools&qt_g=Search+this+group) > you will see a few comparisons between both. I think ultimately it comes > down to preference. > > As for the class thing you talk about, can you give an example of when > this > would be useful in javascript? In php, asp or java I get why classes > become > very useful, but don't see where in javascript. > > The use of plugins and chainablilty, to me, do what classes can do, but I > could be wrong. > > On 8/11/07, Eridius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I have been working with mootools for a bit the past few months and >> started >> to take a look at jQuery too see what the hype is all about from what i >> have >> heard from a co-worker. From what i see, jQuery does not offer anything >> that mootools does not. I mean jQuery does have >> >> $().click >> >> and i don't believe Mootools has anything like that, they just have the: >> >> $().addEvent('click', function(){}); >> >> However this is just a shortcut and not a major thing. On thing that >> jQuery >> has is that there are far more scripts however this is just to the fact >> that >> jQuery has been around longer than mootools. However on the other hand >> mootools has is a very nice way to create new classes. All i have to do >> is: >> >> var ajax_request = new Class( >> { >> options: >> { >> //class options >> }; >> >> initialize: function(options) >> { >> this.setOptions(options); >> //other initliaizing code >> }; >> >> //more methods >> }); >> ajax_request.implement(Options); >> >> var my_ajax_request = new ajax_request({//override default options}); >> my_ajax_request.process(); >> >> Now I have been told that jQuery tries to do things more like the OO >> method. Well to me the basically thing about OO is being able to combine >> members(variables) and methods(functions) into a common >> place(class/object). >> I have tried creating a simple class with jQuery and it does not >> work(this >> code if based off what i was told from these forums): >> >> var ajax_request = function(options) >> { >> ajax_options = >> { >> test: 'test' >> }; >> >> test = function() >> { >> alert(this.test); >> } >> } >> var test = new ajax_request(); >> test.test(); >> >> and this code tells me that test() is not a function of test. It seems >> that >> jQuery wants you to incorporate everything into the $() selector which >> does >> not make sense of everything. Being able create separate object is >> something that is important to me and jQuery does not seem to support >> that. >> >> Another thing that that jQuery says is that is it so small. Well >> comparing >> the full version of mootools(all options selected) to the full version of >> jQuery is unfair. In order to get allt he features of full mootools you >> would have to add jQuery interface script and comparing mootools to >> jQuery&Interface script, mootools is still smaller. >> >> So why should someone choose jQuery over Mootools or is it really just a >> preference thing and and both are basically the same(i see a lot about >> jQuery vs prototype but not alot about jQuery vs mootools) >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Why-jQuery-over-Mootools-tf4254982s15494.html#a12109680 >> Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > -- > Benjamin Sterling > http://www.KenzoMedia.com > http://www.KenzoHosting.com > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Why-jQuery-over-Mootools-tf4254982s15494.html#a12111032 Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
