Comments on: The fog of libraries http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries scratched tallies on the prison wall Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:34:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Fleegix.org : Ongoing JavaScript library discussion http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-52026 Fleegix.org : Ongoing JavaScript library discussion Sun, 21 Jan 2007 06:24:39 +0000 http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-52026 [...] PPK starts off by referencing a post I read last week or so from Stuart Langridge (author of DHTML Utopia, and the tech reviewer for my book), where Stuart seems to moderate a lot of the serious anti-library leanings he used to have. Ultimately however, I don't really buy PPK's final point -- he believes that the current lack of doco means that the only people who can use the toolkits are the experts who don't need them. He writes: [...] [...] PPK starts off by referencing a post I read last week or so from Stuart Langridge (author of DHTML Utopia, and the tech reviewer for my book), where Stuart seems to moderate a lot of the serious anti-library leanings he used to have. Ultimately however, I don’t really buy PPK’s final point — he believes that the current lack of doco means that the only people who can use the toolkits are the experts who don’t need them. He writes: [...]

]]> By: sil http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-48614 sil Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:07:39 +0000 http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-48614 Copongcopong: not sure about just abstracting away all the complexity... Copongcopong: not sure about just abstracting away all the complexity…

]]> By: Copongcopong http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-48504 Copongcopong Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:21:37 +0000 http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-48504 Abstraction is the key. Let the community solve the problem of cross-browser issues. With these libraries, we can focus on creative thinking, and not on browser issues. Abstraction is the key. Let the community solve the problem of cross-browser issues. With these libraries, we can focus on creative thinking, and not on browser issues.

]]> By: Dean Edwards http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-48345 Dean Edwards Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:44:54 +0000 http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-48345 Well said Staurt! I think it's time to stop bashing the very concept of libraries now. Cross-browser JavaScript is too damned difficult to write without library support these days. Well said Staurt! I think it’s time to stop bashing the very concept of libraries now. Cross-browser JavaScript is too damned difficult to write without library support these days.

]]> By: sil http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-42888 sil Fri, 29 Dec 2006 08:39:46 +0000 http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-42888 John: yes. That's why I use jQuery :) I'm trying to not call stuff out by name here, because if I wrote that I'm not convinced that libraries are a good idea *except for jQuery* then, well, it'd look rather partisan :) Plus, YUI's pretty cool; dojo's ubercool, etc. I want us, as a community, to get past the fear of library use, so we need to investigate how to do that. John: yes. That’s why I use jQuery :)

I’m trying to not call stuff out by name here, because if I wrote that I’m not convinced that libraries are a good idea *except for jQuery* then, well, it’d look rather partisan :)

Plus, YUI’s pretty cool; dojo’s ubercool, etc. I want us, as a community, to get past the fear of library use, so we need to investigate how to do that.

]]> By: John Resig http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-42723 John Resig Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:55:16 +0000 http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-42723 The approach that we've been taking with jQuery is to actually reduce the number of features in the core library - keeping it lean and tight. The majority of jQuery development, right now, is in improving its speed. As it stands, we've achieved 4x-10x improvements in selector speed, beating virtually every other selector library on the scene. (This improvement is coming out in the upcoming 1.1 release.) Because jQuery has its plugin architecture, we (the dev team) don't feel compelled to create extra features - that can be left to any common developer. Instead, we just get to focus on creating ultra-robust code that we can be proud of. The approach that we’ve been taking with jQuery is to actually reduce the number of features in the core library - keeping it lean and tight. The majority of jQuery development, right now, is in improving its speed. As it stands, we’ve achieved 4x-10x improvements in selector speed, beating virtually every other selector library on the scene. (This improvement is coming out in the upcoming 1.1 release.)

Because jQuery has its plugin architecture, we (the dev team) don’t feel compelled to create extra features - that can be left to any common developer. Instead, we just get to focus on creating ultra-robust code that we can be proud of.

]]> By: sil http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-42603 sil Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:28:36 +0000 http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-42603 John: absolutely. I use jQuery precisely because I can just use $(document).ready() and it Just Works, and I don't have to think: how do I do this across browsers? The problem is that once library writers have built a solid and consistent simple API to the stuff that people need -- running onload, hiding and showing elements, fetching a URL with Ajax -- then it's difficult to say "and that's what my library does", and stop work on it. You have to add new stuff so it looks like there's still lots of work going on with it, and that's where all the flashy effects come in, because what else is there to add? The Dojo team are adding things that aren't flashy effects, like dojo.storage, and that's great, but that's intensive high-level research stuff; not many people are prepared to use things like that just yet. John: absolutely. I use jQuery precisely because I can just use $(document).ready() and it Just Works, and I don’t have to think: how do I do this across browsers? The problem is that once library writers have built a solid and consistent simple API to the stuff that people need — running onload, hiding and showing elements, fetching a URL with Ajax — then it’s difficult to say “and that’s what my library does”, and stop work on it. You have to add new stuff so it looks like there’s still lots of work going on with it, and that’s where all the flashy effects come in, because what else is there to add? The Dojo team are adding things that aren’t flashy effects, like dojo.storage, and that’s great, but that’s intensive high-level research stuff; not many people are prepared to use things like that just yet.

]]> By: John Resig http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-42543 John Resig Thu, 28 Dec 2006 05:29:15 +0000 http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-42543 Stuart - These are some excellent points. It is a very challenging topic, in general - and one that I've been looking at in depth. I think many people trivialize the work that's done by a JavaScript library - and in many ways, trivialize the development process that surrounds them. I feel that a JavaScript library is more like stdlib in C++, Python's standard library, Java's Standard Library - Yes, you could write all those things from scratch, in fact, many purists think that you should! The problem is that the skills required to write a really good JavaScript library (and, therefore, really good JavaScript code) are way beyond the skill level of the majority of JavaScript coders. (Especially ones that have good teams like Dojo, Prototype, Yahoo UI, and jQuery) Its really easy to trivialize a JavaScript library for "flashy effects" - but really hard to do so for solving hard problems like cross-browser computedStyle, HTML insertion, and DOM Traversal. Christian's criticisms are some of the best that I've read so far and stick very well. For that reason, we've already started work on a new batch of jQuery tutorials, and shining more light on the jQuery development process. I think that in a year, JavaScript developers will be talking about JavaScript libraries very differently, but in a very good way. But in the meantime, libraries are helping a lot of people "get the job done" faster, and more simply, than ever before. Stuart - These are some excellent points. It is a very challenging topic, in general - and one that I’ve been looking at in depth. I think many people trivialize the work that’s done by a JavaScript library - and in many ways, trivialize the development process that surrounds them.

I feel that a JavaScript library is more like stdlib in C++, Python’s standard library, Java’s Standard Library - Yes, you could write all those things from scratch, in fact, many purists think that you should! The problem is that the skills required to write a really good JavaScript library (and, therefore, really good JavaScript code) are way beyond the skill level of the majority of JavaScript coders. (Especially ones that have good teams like Dojo, Prototype, Yahoo UI, and jQuery)

Its really easy to trivialize a JavaScript library for “flashy effects” - but really hard to do so for solving hard problems like cross-browser computedStyle, HTML insertion, and DOM Traversal.

Christian’s criticisms are some of the best that I’ve read so far and stick very well. For that reason, we’ve already started work on a new batch of jQuery tutorials, and shining more light on the jQuery development process.

I think that in a year, JavaScript developers will be talking about JavaScript libraries very differently, but in a very good way. But in the meantime, libraries are helping a lot of people “get the job done” faster, and more simply, than ever before.

]]> By: Karl Swedberg http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-42033 Karl Swedberg Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:13:46 +0000 http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2006/12/24/the-fog-of-libraries#comment-42033 Excellent post, Stuart. Finally, someone with a sensible perspective on JavaScript libraries! I suppose I'm floating somewhere between numbers 1 and 4 in your classification scheme, at least in terms of the experience. But I've been so taken with jQuery -- its elegance, its efficiency, its fun -- that I can't help but share my knowledge when I discover something new. That's why I started the <a href="http://www.learningjquery.com/" rel="nofollow">Learning jQuery</a> blog a few months ago. I guess I should head over to Chris Heilmann's blog now and see what his objections are. Thanks again for the good read. Excellent post, Stuart. Finally, someone with a sensible perspective on JavaScript libraries! I suppose I’m floating somewhere between numbers 1 and 4 in your classification scheme, at least in terms of the experience. But I’ve been so taken with jQuery — its elegance, its efficiency, its fun — that I can’t help but share my knowledge when I discover something new. That’s why I started the Learning jQuery blog a few months ago.

I guess I should head over to Chris Heilmann’s blog now and see what his objections are. Thanks again for the good read.

]]>