5 ms·

The source doesn't look like something I would want to use. Example: https://github.com/paulca/eyeballs.js/blob/master/src/modules/o_O.model.js https://github.

The source doesn't look like something I would want to use. Example: https://github.com/paulca/eyeballs.js/blob/master/src/modules/o_O.model.js https://github.com/paulca/eyeballs.js/blob/master/src/module... Also, how is a 350kb lib consisting of 150 files "lightweight"?

wavephorm 15y ago
Are you just hating or do you have legitimate critiques? What exactly about that source code makes you not want to use it? Not documented to your liking? And 350KB is really not that big for a full-featured framework, especially not if includes ruby scripts and validators.
- arctangent 15y ago
  The code linked to doesn't have any comments in it.
  - wavephorm 15y ago
    Does a file containing one method need comments? initialize: function(model_name, callback) It would be pretty pointless to add comments before every line of code like some people do: // here is a for loop for (var i...) // declare a variable var x = 0; If there is supporting documentation about the operation of the method, which there is in that github page, then I fail to see what would be gained by adding verbose useless comments about typical code.
    - phoboslab 15y ago
      "Does a file containing one method need comments?" So, the whole whole jQuery source is just one function, because its wrapped in one? It's not so much the lack of comments, but the whole formatting of the source. It's just hard to read. On a lesser note, it also seems that the author is pretty new to JavaScript. Underscores in variable names instead of lower camel case, "wrong" bracing style etc. (I'm ok with this, when it's applied consistently - which it is for this lib).
- lobo_tuerto 15y ago
  Well, calling it lightweight when something _lightweigth_ like backbonejs is around (4.6kb production, 41kb development with comments), is begging to not be taken seriously. Naming aside.

wavephorm 15y ago

Are you just hating or do you have legitimate critiques? What exactly about that source code makes you not want to use it? Not documented to your liking? And 350KB is really not that big for a full-featured framework, especially not if includes ruby scripts and validators.

arctangent 15y ago
The code linked to doesn't have any comments in it.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  Does a file containing one method need comments? initialize: function(model_name, callback) It would be pretty pointless to add comments before every line of code like some people do: // here is a for loop for (var i...) // declare a variable var x = 0; If there is supporting documentation about the operation of the method, which there is in that github page, then I fail to see what would be gained by adding verbose useless comments about typical code.
  - phoboslab 15y ago
    "Does a file containing one method need comments?" So, the whole whole jQuery source is just one function, because its wrapped in one? It's not so much the lack of comments, but the whole formatting of the source. It's just hard to read. On a lesser note, it also seems that the author is pretty new to JavaScript. Underscores in variable names instead of lower camel case, "wrong" bracing style etc. (I'm ok with this, when it's applied consistently - which it is for this lib).
lobo_tuerto 15y ago
Well, calling it lightweight when something _lightweigth_ like backbonejs is around (4.6kb production, 41kb development with comments), is begging to not be taken seriously. Naming aside.