]
07-20-2023, 02:55 PM
I'm not a fan of imposing classical object orientation onto JavaScript. There are so many ways to do it that one JavaScript Programmer might be using Base2 for OO, while another uses Prototype or Moo or JS.Class or Joose. Resig deliberately decided not to add classes to jQuery, and that has encouraged people to find more native JavaScript ways to solve problems.
As a result, it's easier for me to read JavaScript other jQuery writers write, and to write jQuery code that's easier for others to read. I typically don't try to emulate class OOP in JavaScript. Instead, I create objects on the fly and pass them around, and I have lots of arrays of objects. It's so easy to understand that I've even found myself carrying that thinking over to OOP languages!
For all I know Moo may very well have caught up with jQuery or surpassed it. But I can't spend my time tracking the 6 or 7 great JavaScript libraries to see which horse is ahead.
I think it's was largely a matter of timing. When masses of programmers jumped into AJAX, jQuery was the hot new cool thing that solved their problems.
Other libraries have largely caught up. YUI, ExtJS, Dojo, Moo--they're all great. But I can't use them all.
I work hard enough trying to figure out the ramifications of the new features of the library I *do* use. For instance, jQuery added Live events as of 1.3. This actually let me cut code from many pages. Does Moo offer that now too, and how am I supposed to know it happened, if it did?
I'm sure Moo is awesome. I'd love to have the time to learn it. But have you looked at Dojo? I had to use it on one project and found that it had pulled in most of the great ideas from jQuery as well. And it has pubsub and good support for Comet.
I sympathize with you. But your programmers are talking sense. Learning jQuery is good for their careers, and there are more books, examples, and fellow programmers to ask for help if they use jQuery.
If you decide to go jQuery after all, think hard before deciding whether to tack on an OO library. There are some cool ones (like JS.Class or Joose), but taking that step means isolating yourself from how most JavaScript programmers code.
As a result, it's easier for me to read JavaScript other jQuery writers write, and to write jQuery code that's easier for others to read. I typically don't try to emulate class OOP in JavaScript. Instead, I create objects on the fly and pass them around, and I have lots of arrays of objects. It's so easy to understand that I've even found myself carrying that thinking over to OOP languages!
For all I know Moo may very well have caught up with jQuery or surpassed it. But I can't spend my time tracking the 6 or 7 great JavaScript libraries to see which horse is ahead.
I think it's was largely a matter of timing. When masses of programmers jumped into AJAX, jQuery was the hot new cool thing that solved their problems.
Other libraries have largely caught up. YUI, ExtJS, Dojo, Moo--they're all great. But I can't use them all.
I work hard enough trying to figure out the ramifications of the new features of the library I *do* use. For instance, jQuery added Live events as of 1.3. This actually let me cut code from many pages. Does Moo offer that now too, and how am I supposed to know it happened, if it did?
I'm sure Moo is awesome. I'd love to have the time to learn it. But have you looked at Dojo? I had to use it on one project and found that it had pulled in most of the great ideas from jQuery as well. And it has pubsub and good support for Comet.
I sympathize with you. But your programmers are talking sense. Learning jQuery is good for their careers, and there are more books, examples, and fellow programmers to ask for help if they use jQuery.
If you decide to go jQuery after all, think hard before deciding whether to tack on an OO library. There are some cool ones (like JS.Class or Joose), but taking that step means isolating yourself from how most JavaScript programmers code.