Yea, i guess your right. jQuery has grown on me the past few month and know I would why I wanted to use mootools instead.
Dan G. Switzer, II wrote: > > >>> guess) it a pain. the javascript class code structure it also very >>akword >>> to be coming from a C++ background. >> >>Amen, and i had the same hurdle to climb, but JavaScript isn't C++. It >>uses a completely different type of OOP. These articles may be helpful >>in understanding it: >> >>Implementing classical inheritance in JS: >>http://javascript.crockford.com/inheritance.html >> >>Understanding Prototypal inheritance: >>http://javascript.crockford.com/prototypal.html >> >>It's interesting to note that while the first article is quite famous, >>and does show how to implement C++-like inheritance in JS, the author >>of the article no longer stands by that method, preferring prototypal >>inheritance instead. > > This is just my opinion, but one reason I prefer to create JS objects the > way ECMA has defined the syntax is it helps me to keep in mind that > JavaScript is not C, Java, C++ or C#--it's JavaScript. > > If you end up trying to copy coding techniques from another language too > closely, I find myself expecting that language to behave accordingly. That > usually gets me into trouble. > > So while it coding your JS objects in a way that fits your C++ familiarity > may help you develop code a little faster out of the box, it's important > to > realize that JS is not C++ and it has its own caveats and quirks. > > I'm sure you realize this, but sticking with the native JS object creation > methods has helped to limit confusion for me... > > -Dan > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Creating-plugins-tp12110577s27240p14321308.html Sent from the jQuery General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
