oops. thanks for the correction. that's what I get for taking a
shortcut.
--Karl
_________________
Karl Swedberg
www.englishrules.com
www.learningjquery.com
On Aug 16, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Andy Matthews wrote:
404 on the first link by the way. Month should be 11, not 12:
http://www.learningjquery.com/2006/11/how-to-get-anything-you-want-
part-1
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:jquery-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Karl Swedberg
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 2:15 PM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery negatives: dual/triple/quadruple
special-case uses for both function calls and method names
Andy,
I realize these are contrived examples, but if you're interested in
seeing what those selectors/traversal methods (e.g. :lt or .lt() )
can be used for, here are a few links that might be helpful:
http://www.learningjquery.com/2006/12/how-to-get-anything-you-want-
part-1
http://www.learningjquery.com/2006/12/how-to-get-anything-you-want-
part-2
http://book.learningjquery.com/3810_02_code/selectors.html
http://book.learningjquery.com/3810_03_code/traversing.html
--Karl
_________________
Karl Swedberg
www.englishrules.com
www.learningjquery.com
On Aug 16, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Andy Matthews wrote:
John...
I should have added on to my OP. Better examples are really what
is needed,
not changes to the language. Let me read through and see possible RW
examples of eq() or is() and let me say "hey I did that very thing
last
week, but with 10 more lines of code)".
andy
-----Original Message-----
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:jquery-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Resig
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:48 PM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery negatives: dual/triple/quadruple
special-case
uses for both function calls and method names
Sure, that makes sense - and it's obviously difficult. I think the
burden
may lie on us to write better examples - although, it's hard to
think of
ones that aren't complex that also aren't contrived.
At this point, I look for fringe cases in jQuery where, simply, a
plugin is
unable to duplicate functionality (or where a plugin would be hugely
bloated, where the result in core would be quite simple, instead).
That being said, I'm still advancing the library with some fun
methods like
.andSelf() whose uses won't become commonly apparent until far
down the
line.
--John
On 8/16/07, Andy Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John...
To be fair...it's very easy to learn the basics of jQuery, but it's
quite a lot of work and time to learn the really cool stuff. I've
never used eq() or
if() and those other because I simply don't understand what they do.
I'm sure some of them could improve my code dramatically but I don't
even know WHEN I might use them, so I don't know when to look for
them. Does that makes sense?
andy
-----Original Message-----
From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of John Resig
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 12:53 PM
To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com
Subject: [jQuery] Re: jQuery negatives: dual/triple/quadruple
special-case uses for both function calls and method names
I don't understand this argument at all. So this guy is proposing
that
we change all the jQuery methods to:
$Array([array of elems])
$Selector("str")
$HTML("html")
$Element(DOMElement)
and:
.appendElement(DOMElement)
.appendHTML("html")
.appendArray([array of elems])
what on earth does that gain you? What's the purpose of using a
language that can overload arguments and not actually using that
feature? What's the advantage of increasing the size of your API
4-fold?
Incredibly weak argument, obviously someone who's never used the
library.
Some method names make no
immediate sense, like .one or .eq, and you can't immediately
tell if
a method acts on the first element in the collection or all of
them.
These arguments are slightly more valid. Although .eq() is going
away
in 1.2. I really don't know what to say, in this case it was
simply a
design decision. We could've had:
.val() (return nothing, do nothing useful)
.val("val") (set value)
.getVal() (get value)
.getVal("val") (return nothing, do nothing useful)
But why have a state of a method perform nothing useful at all? Why
not overload it to actually do something? Why double the size of the
effective API with half-useful functions?
--John
On 8/16/07, Mitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What do you guys think of this critique of jQuery I found on Simon
Willison's site (which is good reading).
http://simonwillison.net/2007/Aug/15/jquery/
<quote>
jQuery is definitely a popular utility function library, but the
sheer amount of dual/triple/quadruple special-case uses for both
function calls and method names is an instant turnoff for me.
The jQuery object itself can perform a selector query, embed a DOM
element, create a DOM element from HTML and assign a
DOMContentReady
event handler - and probably more. Event handling is separated into
separate methods for each event type. Some method names make no
immediate sense, like .one or .eq, and you can't immediately
tell if
a method acts on the first element in the collection or all of
them.
I can't recommend jQuery to the developers I am mentoring
because it
is in itself a completely separate abstraction, and a muddy one at
that. They will end up having to learn jQuery instead of having to
learn DOM, CSS and JS, and when being considered as a direct
replacement for those it fails both due to complexity and
inconsistency."
</quote>
Mitch
