The article that you provided is well written and revealed that jQuery and MooTools are designed with very different goals in mind. I found this article to be the most helpful. Indeed, one need not even choose between them, as they offer very different things.
Roddy On May 21, 2:49 pm, Josh Powell <seas...@gmail.com> wrote: > What do you want to use the library for? > > Selecting DOM Elements > DOM Manipulation > Simplifying Events > Simplifying Ajax > Mimicking classical inheritance > Extending native objects with 'missing' capabilities > Cool Widgets > > From what I can tell, these are the main areas of focus of all the > major javascript libraries. jQuery excels at Selecting DOM elements, > DOM manipulation, Simplifying events, and simplifying ajax. It has > decent classical inheritance support via plugins. It has a few > javascript object/array enhancement capabilities but does not add them > to the native objects. jQuery UI has many cool widgets. > > If you really want missing javascript object/array methods then > Prototype is a good option, but jQuery is as good or better at > everything else. Prototype also has Class support in its core and > some neat effects in Scriptaculous. > > If you want a full blown classical inheritance coding strategy, > mootools excels at this. It also provides a ton of missing object/ > array methods, but it more wordy then jQuery and doesn't provide the > shortcuts that jQuery does by default. Mootools prides itself on its > extendability and can be extended to provide these shortcuts if you > want. > > I've taken part in all of the communities surrounding these three > libraries, and jQuery has by far the most friendly and helpful > community. Check out the number of members on this list vs. the > Prototype/Scriptaculous list. Prototype developers are a silent lot, > popping up now and again to say something, but for the most part are > quiet. John Resig, the creator of jQuery, is usually quite active on > the boards but I suspect has gone into a bit of seclusion lately to > finish up his next book. Mootools community is the least helpful, and > is sometimes outright hostile. The mootools library developers are > all very quiet and don't come out into the spotlight often, but Aaron > Newton has taken up being the public face of mootools. He recently > wrote an article on jQuery vs Mootools with a somewhat mootoolish > bias, but its a great article: > > http://jqueryvsmootools.com/ > > On May 21, 12:39 pm, kiusau <kiu...@mac.com> wrote: > > > On May 21, 12:23 pm, David Meiser <dmei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If you can't bear that thought, just *choose* one. None of my friends > > > were > > > using jQuery when I started using it (now I've converted all of them), > > > but I > > > read an article saying that it was going to be included in ASP.NET MVC and > > > VS 2010. So, I gave it a shot, liked it, so I continue using it. > > > I am not sure that it makes a difference, but I am a dedicated Mac > > user. > > > One other important issue that I forgot to mention is that for the > > moment I have no server-side capability, but will eventually move away > > from my client-side only constraint. > > > Roddy
