News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery).

Re:Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery) by jamongkad on Thursday October 02, 2008 @01:55AM (#321461)
Speed benchmarks aside. I feel his points are valid granted you're coming from a Java/C++ background (where most CS graduates come from anyways). But frankly MooTools feels like it's applying classical OOP to javascript. Whereareas jQuery feels more functional and natural. There is no right and wrong approach (although given the choice I would have js be a statically typed language) it's just that both libs are the love child of their respective creators to work in something they enjoy doing. And have healthy communities to support their endeavors!

Now I'm starting to see one of the posters gripe about jQuery plugins. And for me I think that is by design. jQuery I believe was designed to be a lightweight as possible. Practicing modularity at it's finest. Had jQuery been baked with all the bells and whistles, I do not think it would have attracted a large number of devs. Thinking about it what would SQlite be had it had all the bells and whistles of MySQL?!?!

Now I do not know which JS lib fares better when working with a team. I suspect MooTools (due to it's classical OOP behavior) might win out.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery) by mechanical_fish on Thursday October 02, 2008 @09:33AM (#321694)
I suspect MooTools (due to it's classical OOP behavior) might win out.

Does the sight of Java programmers trying to force every other language to conform to Java's type system remind anyone else of Harrison Bergeron? Or is it just me?

(Just in case you didn't take my high school English classes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron )

Hasn't Javascript already suffered enough? It even has to wear Java's name. Leave Javascript alooooone!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery) by Hexstream on Thursday October 02, 2008 @04:12PM (#322096)
"Now I'm starting to see one of the posters gripe about jQuery plugins. And for me I think that is by design. jQuery I believe was designed to be a lightweight as possible. Practicing modularity at it's finest. Had jQuery been baked with all the bells and whistles, I do not think it would have attracted a large number of devs."

Doesn't the use of a plugin system generally increase lightweightness and modularity because you can move more functionnality out of core into optional add-ons?

[ Parent | on HN ]