5 ms·

Hi, I'm you from two years ago (loving jQuery, moving more code from server to browser, never used Closure Compiler). I'd like to take your advice, but I'm conf

Hi, I'm you from two years ago (loving jQuery, moving more code from server to browser, never used Closure Compiler). I'd like to take your advice, but I'm confused about something. It sounds like you said (1) you had a great experience with jQuery, (2) writing Javascript is a much worse experience with Closure Compiler, (3) therefore use the Closure Compiler and not jQuery. Could you please explain why you like the Closure Compiler, so I can understand the jump to (3)? (1) "running circles around fellow devs", "JS, with it's loose typing and object notation was just a fast place to write code" (2) "now, I'm writing typed code, in a non-typed language, and there's not much to really like about the language" (3) "Start using the Closure Compiler, and use less jQuery"

euroclydon 16y ago
It depends on the size of your project. Mine is large. Javascript becomes unwieldy after a few thousand lines. Closure Compiler really helps, but in you have to use comments to tell the compiler what types your functions take and return. This becomes a drag, making JS, to me, less fun. If you're going to make a big project, I recommend CC from the start.
- ericlavigne 16y ago
  Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. My projects so far have included well under 1000 LOC of my code per page. If and when this changes, I will watch out for this issue and consider Closure Compiler as a possible solution. I also wonder if (runtime-checked) pre/post-conditions could bring much of the benefits you speak of, with the option to use them sparingly and avoid the "drag" part. In other words, make the type annotations optional and only put them where it looks like the extra safety is important enough to be worth it. In any case, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Thanks for the heads up.
- kls 16y ago
  You may want to look at ShrinkSafe and the Dojo build system. While it does not create quite the compactness of the Closure compiler it does get you close without enforcing constraint on the way you write JS. As well, if you are doing large apps with jQuery then you should take a look at Backbone. It helps organize the JS application architecture. In saying that though there really are better toolkits for large JS apps that are designed to provide the frameworks of application architecture in your app. Dojo is the one that I use and recommend, once over the learning curve you will find that it is designed to handle large JS application is an intuitive manner and not just by making it look like Java in the browser. It exploits the best parts of Javascript while bringing in language constructs from several schools of thought to provide a very robust toolkit. I have used most all of them and it is my choice when the webapp surpasses a certain point in complexity. I always tell people that I can save them a lot of time when it comes to JS toolkit selection and then I tell them if it's small use jQuery and if it's large use Dojo. It is meant to be slightly humorous but there is a grain of truth to it. There is nothing faster to learn and more intuitive that jQuery but it comes at the cost of reduction in it's robustness. There are tools to address this but to me they always feel like bolt on's. Dojo on the other hand trades up front intuitiveness for robustness. A trade off that toolkits like Closure make is to make JS more like Java to bring back some of that intuitiveness but at the cost of some of that robustness. Dojo is unapologetic a JS toolkit and uses JS concepts as first class citizens. It then borrows best of class language constructs from other areas of language progression. Anyway, my long winded point is, if you are having issue with growth of your jQuery application you may want to give Dojo a try. Rebecca did and was pleasantly surprised: http://blog.rebeccamurphey.com/2009/11/12/dojo-confessions-or-how-i-gave-up-my-jquery-security-blanket-and-lived-to-tell-the-tale http://blog.rebeccamurphey.com/2009/11/12/dojo-confessions-o...

euroclydon 16y ago

It depends on the size of your project. Mine is large. Javascript becomes unwieldy after a few thousand lines. Closure Compiler really helps, but in you have to use comments to tell the compiler what types your functions take and return. This becomes a drag, making JS, to me, less fun. If you're going to make a big project, I recommend CC from the start.

ericlavigne 16y ago
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. My projects so far have included well under 1000 LOC of my code per page. If and when this changes, I will watch out for this issue and consider Closure Compiler as a possible solution. I also wonder if (runtime-checked) pre/post-conditions could bring much of the benefits you speak of, with the option to use them sparingly and avoid the "drag" part. In other words, make the type annotations optional and only put them where it looks like the extra safety is important enough to be worth it. In any case, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Thanks for the heads up.
kls 16y ago
You may want to look at ShrinkSafe and the Dojo build system. While it does not create quite the compactness of the Closure compiler it does get you close without enforcing constraint on the way you write JS. As well, if you are doing large apps with jQuery then you should take a look at Backbone. It helps organize the JS application architecture. In saying that though there really are better toolkits for large JS apps that are designed to provide the frameworks of application architecture in your app. Dojo is the one that I use and recommend, once over the learning curve you will find that it is designed to handle large JS application is an intuitive manner and not just by making it look like Java in the browser. It exploits the best parts of Javascript while bringing in language constructs from several schools of thought to provide a very robust toolkit. I have used most all of them and it is my choice when the webapp surpasses a certain point in complexity. I always tell people that I can save them a lot of time when it comes to JS toolkit selection and then I tell them if it's small use jQuery and if it's large use Dojo. It is meant to be slightly humorous but there is a grain of truth to it. There is nothing faster to learn and more intuitive that jQuery but it comes at the cost of reduction in it's robustness. There are tools to address this but to me they always feel like bolt on's. Dojo on the other hand trades up front intuitiveness for robustness. A trade off that toolkits like Closure make is to make JS more like Java to bring back some of that intuitiveness but at the cost of some of that robustness. Dojo is unapologetic a JS toolkit and uses JS concepts as first class citizens. It then borrows best of class language constructs from other areas of language progression. Anyway, my long winded point is, if you are having issue with growth of your jQuery application you may want to give Dojo a try. Rebecca did and was pleasantly surprised: http://blog.rebeccamurphey.com/2009/11/12/dojo-confessions-or-how-i-gave-up-my-jquery-security-blanket-and-lived-to-tell-the-tale http://blog.rebeccamurphey.com/2009/11/12/dojo-confessions-o...