You're making MooTools sound like it's a fork from Prototype. I'd argue that there's fundamental and code differences between the two.
Mitchell, I believe the impressions MooTools leave should be experienced rather than explained :-\. -Olmo Maldonado MooTools Developer http://mootools.net/ On Aug 4, 10:46 pm, "Ganeshji Marwaha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/
