Re:Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)
by jdavid on Thursday October 02, 2008 @12:09PM
(#321829)
Ok, i have used both in both open social environments and large corporate websites.
//
//
==MooTools==
-very simple, very light, almost minimalistic
-the community is more on the "creative" and "artist" side of things, the site just looks well designed
-Mootools becomes unmanageable in a mixed framework enviroment
//
//
==jQuery==
-great for the medium sized website
-unobtrusive, allows you to rename the jQuery object
-architecturally simpler, but highly abstracted
--does not map to native javascript, so its a ton of work to pull jQuery out of your JS.
-HUGE community
-hundreds of Plugins
-has inside influence with Mozilla, Webkit, and now IE
-documentation wiki, when something is broke, anyone can fix it.
//
//
==reasons to use neither==
-framework lifecycles are hard to manage right now
--websites with thousands of lines of code can be hard to upgrade to new versions
-developers need to learn Javascript 1st and then the Framework
-Caja breaks most frameworks
-Half of Opensocial users are on Caja containers
-debugging can be easier on native code.
//
//
there are things i love about both frameworks and i would recommend either of them to different people, but i think any JavaScript 'rockstar' will need to know all of the frameworks and why one is better than the other.
personally i don't like prototype (sorry), but the namespace is bloated. Why do i have a different interface for css selectors and element ids, jQuery Gets this WAY right. i am finding that i don't like attaching framework objects to element IDs, it forces you to have ids on everything which should all be unique. i am still deciding if css classes make more sense, or maybe a custom attribute makes more sense. the downside to this would be performance. ids are hashed, vs attributes are not.
//
//
==MooTools==
-very simple, very light, almost minimalistic
-the community is more on the "creative" and "artist" side of things, the site just looks well designed
-Mootools becomes unmanageable in a mixed framework enviroment
//
//
==jQuery==
-great for the medium sized website
-unobtrusive, allows you to rename the jQuery object
-architecturally simpler, but highly abstracted
--does not map to native javascript, so its a ton of work to pull jQuery out of your JS.
-HUGE community
-hundreds of Plugins
-has inside influence with Mozilla, Webkit, and now IE
-documentation wiki, when something is broke, anyone can fix it.
//
//
==reasons to use neither==
-framework lifecycles are hard to manage right now
--websites with thousands of lines of code can be hard to upgrade to new versions
-developers need to learn Javascript 1st and then the Framework
-Caja breaks most frameworks
-Half of Opensocial users are on Caja containers
-debugging can be easier on native code.
//
//
there are things i love about both frameworks and i would recommend either of them to different people, but i think any JavaScript 'rockstar' will need to know all of the frameworks and why one is better than the other.
personally i don't like prototype (sorry), but the namespace is bloated. Why do i have a different interface for css selectors and element ids, jQuery Gets this WAY right. i am finding that i don't like attaching framework objects to element IDs, it forces you to have ids on everything which should all be unique. i am still deciding if css classes make more sense, or maybe a custom attribute makes more sense. the downside to this would be performance. ids are hashed, vs attributes are not.