2 ms·

While I disagree about your arguments against jQuery UI (I actually quite like it as a whole, and the CSS arragenment doesn't bother me at all), I wholeheartedl

by Griever 16y ago

While I disagree about your arguments against jQuery UI (I actually quite like it as a whole, and the CSS arragenment doesn't bother me at all), I wholeheartedly agree about jqGrid. What a terribly bloated plugin. I have no idea how it got to earn the 'respected' title it has today.

Groxx 16y ago
I think it's the jQuery UI CSS integration and that it really does do just about everything. You just need to kick it around to get it to do so correctly, and haunt Stack Overflow when documentation fails and the cryptic source code don't help ("rd[ts.p.colModel[j+gi+si+ni].name] = v;" ? WTF?). I have no clue how Oleg does it, I think they may actually be a super-intelligent chatbot that searches against the source code. As to the rant against UI's consistency, I should point out that I deal with jQuery and in-house code almost completely, no Ext / other frameworks, and I'm not counting one-trick-ponies, though those are typically simple enough to re-write to do what I want. And I write freakishly flexible code any time I run across a re-use case (I'm helping build a utility base for the company I'm working with). jQuery is fantastic, but UI has nowhere near that level of polish.
- Griever 16y ago
  Now that I will agree with. I was just saying that overall, and in comparison to other UI frameworks, jQuery UI works surprisingly well with jQuery. I won't deny that there is definitely room for improvement, but my experiences with it so far have been relatively painless. It should also be mentioned that I work with both quite frequently.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    >in comparison to other UI frameworks That's exactly the way of looking at jQuery UI I wish to squash. Absolutely, it's quite good compared to the alternatives, and definitely the best I've dealt with. But that doesn't mean it's good (I think it is, but it doesn't imply that it is). Holding something in comparison to what exists now is a sure-fire way to never get anything significantly better. Overall, with UI, I generally agree. Most tasks Just Work, display is consistent, and behavior is generally what's desirable. The consistency is a huge boon for cross-browser development, and it's nigh-flawless. But quite a few modifications are utter PITAs, and I find myself constantly needing to make modifications to get X in a UI widget, or to get it to play nicely with Y or not fall behind Z. I may be doing things phenomenally wrongly, but the code hasn't been much of a help and neither has the documentation, so what else is one to do but try and battle the side-effects? I highly doubt my job would pay me to spend the large number of hours necessary to truly understand my way around the codebase, and my free-time is better spent elsewhere, because it's easier to simply do without when major problems crop up. But I'm generally dissatisfied with UI frameworks in general, so part of my ranting may come from that. And I intend to try writing my own, so I'm not just sitting here complaining on the internet :)

by Griever 16y ago

Groxx 16y ago

I think it's the jQuery UI CSS integration and that it really does do just about everything. You just need to kick it around to get it to do so correctly, and haunt Stack Overflow when documentation fails and the cryptic source code don't help ("rd[ts.p.colModel[j+gi+si+ni].name] = v;" ? WTF?). I have no clue how Oleg does it, I think they may actually be a super-intelligent chatbot that searches against the source code. As to the rant against UI's consistency, I should point out that I deal with jQuery and in-house code almost completely, no Ext / other frameworks, and I'm not counting one-trick-ponies, though those are typically simple enough to re-write to do what I want. And I write freakishly flexible code any time I run across a re-use case (I'm helping build a utility base for the company I'm working with). jQuery is fantastic, but UI has nowhere near that level of polish.

Griever 16y ago
Now that I will agree with. I was just saying that overall, and in comparison to other UI frameworks, jQuery UI works surprisingly well with jQuery. I won't deny that there is definitely room for improvement, but my experiences with it so far have been relatively painless. It should also be mentioned that I work with both quite frequently.
- Groxx 16y ago
  >in comparison to other UI frameworks That's exactly the way of looking at jQuery UI I wish to squash. Absolutely, it's quite good compared to the alternatives, and definitely the best I've dealt with. But that doesn't mean it's good (I think it is, but it doesn't imply that it is). Holding something in comparison to what exists now is a sure-fire way to never get anything significantly better. Overall, with UI, I generally agree. Most tasks Just Work, display is consistent, and behavior is generally what's desirable. The consistency is a huge boon for cross-browser development, and it's nigh-flawless. But quite a few modifications are utter PITAs, and I find myself constantly needing to make modifications to get X in a UI widget, or to get it to play nicely with Y or not fall behind Z. I may be doing things phenomenally wrongly, but the code hasn't been much of a help and neither has the documentation, so what else is one to do but try and battle the side-effects? I highly doubt my job would pay me to spend the large number of hours necessary to truly understand my way around the codebase, and my free-time is better spent elsewhere, because it's easier to simply do without when major problems crop up. But I'm generally dissatisfied with UI frameworks in general, so part of my ranting may come from that. And I intend to try writing my own, so I'm not just sitting here complaining on the internet :)