All this link says to me is that the people who hang in comp.lang.javascript are all a bunch of smug pricks.
David Mark comes across like a complete ass. And while his critique of jQuery might have some validity, his tone and attitude are such a turn off, and the consequence of him being "right" is not really all that important in the grand scheme of things.
People build cool shit with jQuery. That's all that is important. While "My Library" might be better, rate of adoption is sometimes more important than correctness. Specifically for something as trivial as javascript. If it's really important to him, why isn't he participating in making jQuery better since "My Library" is used by virtually nobody. From the read, it seems like his ego is getting in the way. And it's funny that, considering he hasn't done much noteworthy otherwise.
jQuery has a pretty uniform programmer interface. I guess just that one is the killing feature than other library. The dom method is much difficult to be remember.
So just wait until John Resig to improve the code. He helped to start an movement. When Linux came out in 91, my friend said why did not I use other unix on pc but that crap. But almost 20 years later, Linux is alive and kicking...
Worst is better. As long as it propagates and more users bases, the improvement will come one day.
Don't forget technology is also an human activity. So social aspect of the technology acceptance is part of the equation.
"jQuery has a pretty uniform programmer interface. I guess just that one is the killing feature than other library. The dom method is much difficult to be remember."
Yes, jQuery's uniform interface is useless to abstract varying environments. That's part of what is killing it. If you can't detect when a method will work, you are doomed to exceptions in environments unknown to John Resig (which would seem to include all versions of IE.)
No, John Resig didn't start any movement. jQuery is not Linux. It's just a stupid little script.
> All this link says to me is that the people who hang in comp.lang.javascript are all a bunch of smug pricks.
From my experience, that can be said of comp.lang.*
I haven't been to any of the comp.lang groups in a while though, but it doesn't look like I've missed much.
I'll give the regulars there this much: most of them really know what they're talking about. If I were John Resig, I'd take that message to head, not heart.
Instead of attacking them with "smug pricks" and "complete ass", read their reasoning. Look at the code.
Do you want your js to be creating functions all the time? Is it worth it?
My personal stance, is that you simply don't need a javascript library. The browser differences are very small, and not rocket science to work with.
Learning javascript > learning jquery | prototype | etc
I agree though, people build cool stuff with jquery. This thread is just people pointing out that if you care how fast your webapp runs, or how much memory it uses, then using a library is probably a bad idea.
Come on. If you put code out there, you're going to have "smug pricks" showing you why it completely sucks. You can either take on board their criticism, or ignore it. I'd say it's worth taking it on board to improve the code. Regardless of how smugly it's put.
organization is politics. If someone is so obnoxious that they can only contribute in a manner as poisonous as this, then what the hell is the point of including them?
It's not worth the collective psychic grief. There's enough fighting amongst people who mean well and are trying to steer projects in the best manner they can. If someone is choosing the be an asshole, then they can get lost.
For that matter, it's very rare that any random asshole really is some special snowflake of a talent who can't be profitably replaced by someone with social skills.
I'd say it's more emblematic of the spirit of asshole pricks who think, because they know a better way, they have a right to be heard. Just ain't so, my friend.
You could have the sweetest sort algorithm heretofore known only to the gods. But it won't do you a lick of good if you cannot marshal the civility necessary to engage in honest dialog with interested peers.
The OP does not come close to meeting this criteria. You want to play with the other kids? You have to play nice. It doesn't matter if you have the shiniest ball or fanciest bat. That's not what a community is about.
I think the problem here is that there are still people who think that a 1-5% performance difference on a webapp means anything at all. I would trade 5% of my app performance for 5% more code out of developers any day of the week. jQuery and other libraries my an inefficient "crutch", but if lets a coder get the job done in one or two lines instead of 50 the crutch is worth the cost.
"I would trade 5% of my app performance for 5% more code out of developers any day of the week."
Then you should be fired.
"jQuery and other libraries my an inefficient "crutch", but if lets a coder get the job done in one or two lines instead of 50 the crutch is worth the cost."
They "chain" 50 lines together into two, which makes them virtually impossible to read or debug (especially for neophyte coders.) All of that time you "saved" is coming back to you eventually in spades. Count on it.
"I would trade 5% of my app performance for 5% more code out of developers any day of the week."
Then you should be fired.
"jQuery and other libraries my an inefficient "crutch", but if lets a coder get the job done in one or two lines instead of 50 the crutch is worth the cost."
They "chain" 50 lines together into two, which makes them virtually impossible to read or debug (especially for neophyte coders.) All of that time you "saved" is coming back to you eventually in spades. Count on it.
"All this link says to me is that the people who hang in comp.lang.javascript are all a bunch of smug pricks."
I don't see that.
"David Mark comes across like a complete ass. And while his critique of jQuery might have some validity, his tone and attitude are such a turn off, and the consequence of him being "right" is not really all that important in the grand scheme of things."
Being right doesn't matter? That's some scheme you have there.
"People build cool shit with jQuery. That's all that is important. While "My Library" might be better, rate of adoption is sometimes more important than correctness. Specifically for something as trivial as javascript. If it's really important to him, why isn't he participating in making jQuery better since "My Library" is used by virtually nobody. From the read, it seems like his ego is getting in the way. And it's funny that, considering he hasn't done much noteworthy otherwise."
You don't seem to know anything about My Library (or David Mark for that matter.) Why don't you do some reading and try again.
Being respected doesn't matter? Were you dissed as a young programmer? Did somebody take your beautiful 'hello world' creation and laugh in your face at its inefficiency? What do you gain exactly, by coming across as a 'smug prick' or a 'complete ass'?
"Being right doesn't matter? That's some scheme you have there."
Yet it's the overwhelming opinion of many here. Just look at these comments.
We're trying to do you a favor, man. Let me offer you the constructive criticism you didn't offer in your post:
If you propose a theory in the spirit of honest debate and camaraderie, and that theory is proven to be incorrect, no one remembers that you were the dude with the "wrong theory". All they remember is the right theory and that you helped to frame it.
On the other hand, if you put forth a theory like an asshole, and that theory is proven to be correct, you're still an asshole.
Sure, this probably doesn't seem fair from a meritocratic point of view. But it's one of the laws of the world we live in, same as gravity. I think you'd end up encountering a great deal more success if you started factoring it into your equations.
If jQuery is open source, and you look at the source, and you see room for improvement. ... improve it. ... or make a constructive criticism pointing out how it could be improved and someone else will do it.
Could the code be faster? Sure. People often analyze libraries, identify a critical path that is limiting performance, and then zero in on the offending the code ... and then improve it.
I think it's find the author goes on a bit of a rant. Perhaps he'll inspire a few coders (or Resig himself) to address some of the criticisms by revising the code, and then everyone benefits.
Unfortunately, I've talked to Resig in CLJ. He tried to address some of my concerns. It took almost two years and the effort was still a complete failure. He doesn't know what he is doing and he is afraid to ask.
Awww, c'mon. We're intelligent people here. Resig isn't running around crying about the way you've written... er... what was it you've done again? I know you're dying to be asked.
he pointed out a few good places where the code could be cleaned up.
resig: i hope that you see this post, ignore the flamebait, and notice how the suggestions don't look too bad to fix up. also, thanks for jquery -- it's awesome.
That's your bottom line then? Pure Javascript or nothing? 'Cause that would tend to back up the 'smug prick' and 'complete ass' assertions I've seen thrown in your direction, IMHO.
jQuery's own code is not so developer friendly, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it has revolutionized JavaScript development in the browser for a lot of people. Before you criticize it, it also helps to understand jQuery's design goals: to be small, to be fast, to get out of your way and just "do what you mean".
A lot of its own code is hard to read exactly because it makes the code that uses it ridiculously compact and easy to read (e.g. liberal use of function overloading). In order to keep the library small, some of this code is not as clear and verbose as it should probably be.
However, jQuery is made by people who live and breathe JavaScript code. They use patterns that can look utterly foreign to people used to more conventional imperative languages (like logical operator short circuiting), but which are actually more readable if you know what it's doing.
As for performance, he points out a lot of things like "creating tons of functions on the fly" and "instantiating new objects for everything", but he doesn't actually prove that any of these points cause performance issues. It should be as simple as rewriting the code to get rid of these 'obvious' deficiencies and then benchmarking it. Which this person has not done.
I'll trust John Resig, the guy who is being paid by Mozilla to work on JavaScript full time, over some random internet dude with a chip on his shoulder.
"However, jQuery is made by people who live and breathe JavaScript code. They use patterns that can look utterly foreign to people used to more conventional imperative languages (like logical operator short circuiting), but which are actually more readable if you know what it's doing."
LOL. Did you actually read the review? Perhaps you should read my review of your review (of my review.)
"I'll trust John Resig, the guy who is being paid by Mozilla to work on JavaScript full time, over some random internet dude with a chip on his shoulder."
If jQuery's so inefficiently written, I dread to think how the others are written based on the fact that jQuery is approximately a squillion times quicker. Bigger picture David Mark, bigger picture.
43 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 53.7 ms ] threadAlthough it is funny when the flame baiters start calling each other "wannabe" in the thread.
David Mark comes across like a complete ass. And while his critique of jQuery might have some validity, his tone and attitude are such a turn off, and the consequence of him being "right" is not really all that important in the grand scheme of things.
People build cool shit with jQuery. That's all that is important. While "My Library" might be better, rate of adoption is sometimes more important than correctness. Specifically for something as trivial as javascript. If it's really important to him, why isn't he participating in making jQuery better since "My Library" is used by virtually nobody. From the read, it seems like his ego is getting in the way. And it's funny that, considering he hasn't done much noteworthy otherwise.
So just wait until John Resig to improve the code. He helped to start an movement. When Linux came out in 91, my friend said why did not I use other unix on pc but that crap. But almost 20 years later, Linux is alive and kicking...
Worst is better. As long as it propagates and more users bases, the improvement will come one day.
Don't forget technology is also an human activity. So social aspect of the technology acceptance is part of the equation.
Yes, jQuery's uniform interface is useless to abstract varying environments. That's part of what is killing it. If you can't detect when a method will work, you are doomed to exceptions in environments unknown to John Resig (which would seem to include all versions of IE.)
No, John Resig didn't start any movement. jQuery is not Linux. It's just a stupid little script.
From my experience, that can be said of comp.lang.*
I haven't been to any of the comp.lang groups in a while though, but it doesn't look like I've missed much.
I'll give the regulars there this much: most of them really know what they're talking about. If I were John Resig, I'd take that message to head, not heart.
Do you want your js to be creating functions all the time? Is it worth it?
My personal stance, is that you simply don't need a javascript library. The browser differences are very small, and not rocket science to work with. Learning javascript > learning jquery | prototype | etc
I agree though, people build cool stuff with jquery. This thread is just people pointing out that if you care how fast your webapp runs, or how much memory it uses, then using a library is probably a bad idea.
I don't wanna. Because they're smug pricks. Next?
It's not worth the collective psychic grief. There's enough fighting amongst people who mean well and are trying to steer projects in the best manner they can. If someone is choosing the be an asshole, then they can get lost.
There's no excuse for the abuse.
You could have the sweetest sort algorithm heretofore known only to the gods. But it won't do you a lick of good if you cannot marshal the civility necessary to engage in honest dialog with interested peers.
The OP does not come close to meeting this criteria. You want to play with the other kids? You have to play nice. It doesn't matter if you have the shiniest ball or fanciest bat. That's not what a community is about.
http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspeed/report/charts.html
"I would trade 5% of my app performance for 5% more code out of developers any day of the week."
Then you should be fired.
"jQuery and other libraries my an inefficient "crutch", but if lets a coder get the job done in one or two lines instead of 50 the crutch is worth the cost."
They "chain" 50 lines together into two, which makes them virtually impossible to read or debug (especially for neophyte coders.) All of that time you "saved" is coming back to you eventually in spades. Count on it.
http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspeed/report/charts.html
And those are samples chosen by the jQuery developers, specifically for this test.
http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspeed/report/charts.html
"I would trade 5% of my app performance for 5% more code out of developers any day of the week."
Then you should be fired.
"jQuery and other libraries my an inefficient "crutch", but if lets a coder get the job done in one or two lines instead of 50 the crutch is worth the cost."
They "chain" 50 lines together into two, which makes them virtually impossible to read or debug (especially for neophyte coders.) All of that time you "saved" is coming back to you eventually in spades. Count on it.
I don't see that.
"David Mark comes across like a complete ass. And while his critique of jQuery might have some validity, his tone and attitude are such a turn off, and the consequence of him being "right" is not really all that important in the grand scheme of things."
Being right doesn't matter? That's some scheme you have there.
"People build cool shit with jQuery. That's all that is important. While "My Library" might be better, rate of adoption is sometimes more important than correctness. Specifically for something as trivial as javascript. If it's really important to him, why isn't he participating in making jQuery better since "My Library" is used by virtually nobody. From the read, it seems like his ego is getting in the way. And it's funny that, considering he hasn't done much noteworthy otherwise."
You don't seem to know anything about My Library (or David Mark for that matter.) Why don't you do some reading and try again.
Yet it's the overwhelming opinion of many here. Just look at these comments.
We're trying to do you a favor, man. Let me offer you the constructive criticism you didn't offer in your post:
If you propose a theory in the spirit of honest debate and camaraderie, and that theory is proven to be incorrect, no one remembers that you were the dude with the "wrong theory". All they remember is the right theory and that you helped to frame it.
On the other hand, if you put forth a theory like an asshole, and that theory is proven to be correct, you're still an asshole.
Sure, this probably doesn't seem fair from a meritocratic point of view. But it's one of the laws of the world we live in, same as gravity. I think you'd end up encountering a great deal more success if you started factoring it into your equations.
LOL. Don't do me any favors. Thanks!
Could the code be faster? Sure. People often analyze libraries, identify a critical path that is limiting performance, and then zero in on the offending the code ... and then improve it.
I think it's find the author goes on a bit of a rant. Perhaps he'll inspire a few coders (or Resig himself) to address some of the criticisms by revising the code, and then everyone benefits.
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7vul9/some_tech...
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7vul9/some_tech....
resig: i hope that you see this post, ignore the flamebait, and notice how the suggestions don't look too bad to fix up. also, thanks for jquery -- it's awesome.
A lot of its own code is hard to read exactly because it makes the code that uses it ridiculously compact and easy to read (e.g. liberal use of function overloading). In order to keep the library small, some of this code is not as clear and verbose as it should probably be.
However, jQuery is made by people who live and breathe JavaScript code. They use patterns that can look utterly foreign to people used to more conventional imperative languages (like logical operator short circuiting), but which are actually more readable if you know what it's doing.
As for performance, he points out a lot of things like "creating tons of functions on the fly" and "instantiating new objects for everything", but he doesn't actually prove that any of these points cause performance issues. It should be as simple as rewriting the code to get rid of these 'obvious' deficiencies and then benchmarking it. Which this person has not done.
I'll trust John Resig, the guy who is being paid by Mozilla to work on JavaScript full time, over some random internet dude with a chip on his shoulder.
LOL. Did you actually read the review? Perhaps you should read my review of your review (of my review.)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_t...
"I'll trust John Resig, the guy who is being paid by Mozilla to work on JavaScript full time, over some random internet dude with a chip on his shoulder."
You are deluded. See my review.