Message from discussion
Prototype + lowpro vs. JQuery
Received: by 10.35.124.20 with SMTP id b20mr7712848pyn.5.1201517623471;
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <d...@danwebb.net>
Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.224])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a28si5966024pye.0.2008.01.28.02.53.43;
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 64.233.184.224 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of d...@danwebb.net) client-ip=64.233.184.224;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 64.233.184.224 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of d...@danwebb.net) smtp.mail=...@danwebb.net
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id c8so858319wra.26
for <low-pro@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.189.9 with SMTP id m9mr2034309ybf.142.1201517623090;
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.181.7 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:53:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5b3e279f0801280253l624c333avfc9f8d128f7055ff@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:53:43 +0000
From: "Dan Webb" <d...@danwebb.net>
To: low-pro@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Prototype + lowpro vs. JQuery
In-Reply-To: <b10d3fec-14ec-4eda-a57c-c82af44cc998@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <102c1a64-c792-46f5-95d0-202ce9fdbe3c@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
<bb99361a0801211126k2df88416h68021d8a797c3f0b@mail.gmail.com>
<f58d8dcb0801211358w51dadccdgc838fb1a6abd11e6@mail.gmail.com>
<5b3e279f0801251922g20060bfbxbf536db9cb41d802@mail.gmail.com>
<f58d8dcb0801251938r688da9fex9992160b1b1ff195@mail.gmail.com>
<5b3e279f0801260204o7e8ecb37qd6c994c071274fad@mail.gmail.com>
<5b3e279f0801260630i58a84ef2u336f161f17d78ab6@mail.gmail.com>
<7438eebe0801261609g59af8c07hbe6f6e59256e0550@mail.gmail.com>
<b10d3fec-14ec-4eda-a57c-c82af44cc998@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
> Now, another question I have with all this framework talk.. and dare I
> say it.. but Mootools 1.2 is always something that has caught my eye
> with its efficiency, speed, clarity of code, and code/framework
> philosophy. Any thoughts?
Heh...at this time, no. I don't think I want to support loads of
versions of Low Pro and peronally I've never seen where Mootools fits
into the puzzle as far as JS libraries are concerned. In my opinion,
it doesn't really offer anything that Prototype or jQuery haven't got
so I've never thought to use it myself. However, Im by no means
saying it's not a good library.
I'd be totally happy for someone to do the port though. After using
Low Pro's behavior classes quite heavily over the past year or so I'm
really convinced that its the best way of writing components and
managing the complexity of Ajax applications in general and the idea
is totally transferable between libraries. I even considered trying
to write Low Pro in a library independent way but after investigating
it it definitely felt like it would end up very over-engineered.
To be honest, Low Pro has become quite a compact piece of code so it
would only take me another 30 mins or so but I'm not sure I'd be
qualified to support code that I wouldn't use myself and it would be
better ran by someone from the Mootools camp.
Cheers,
--
Dan Webb
http://www.danwebb.net
aim: danwrong123
skype: danwrong
|
