4 ms·
This seems like it's a lot of overhead for what amounts, in terms of capability, to a reimplementation of greasemonkey. It also makes you implement finer contro
by gue5t 15y ago
This seems like it's a lot of overhead for what amounts, in terms of capability, to a reimplementation of greasemonkey. It also makes you implement finer controls on execution by url yourself, whereas greasemonkey has them in its syntax. The author states,
"GreaseMonkey user scripts are great, but you need to publish them somewhere and re-publish after making modifications. With dotjs, just add or edit files in ~/.js."
but this caveat is just as strong for files you maintain outside of your browser, and some browsers' implementations of userscripts/greasemonkeylikes actually have a similar filesystem-based model for managing scripts already.
While respectable, I had hoped to be more impressed by a tool that beckons me to "hack the web".
- defunkt 15y agoThat's all true, but dotjs is only for Google Chrome on OS X. Google Chrome on OS X has no such filesystem-based model for managing scripts.
- wahnfrieden 15y agoTrue, and this is why I love dotjs. Thanks for making it! Maybe a good followup project would be to use some of the dotjs code to help make a filesystem-based GreaseMonkey system for Chrome, which would be just as easy to manage as dotjs scripts are.
- seanp2k 15y agoSo actually it's much worse than Greasemonkey. Also, with GM you can just save the script with the same filename and it'll use that instead. This project is 100% useless.
- dasil003 15y agoUnless you don't use Firefox and you tend to have a lot of dot files that you hack around with in your home directory. Then it starts to seem pretty awesome.
- scrrr 15y agoChrome runs Greasemonkey-scripts, too. They are automatically converted to extensions in the background. Works very well. ( http://blog.chromium.org/2010/02/40000-more-extensions.html http://blog.chromium.org/2010/02/40000-more-extensions.html ) But I wouldn't call this useless. It's just another approach.
- ericmoritz 15y agoYou know that once a user script is installed in chrome you can edit the script.js file in the extension's directory on the fly. It's a little more work than simply putting a file in ~/.js but it doesn't require a HTTP server to function.
- seanp2k 15y agoYeah, already have greasemonkey and the only thing I have to do to "publish" files is to save them with the same name. This project is a lot of work for zero benefit.