5 ms·

It would be useful that instead of praising one person and denegrating another, supporters of jquery, capucinno et al addressed each of the many concerns that h

It would be useful that instead of praising one person and denegrating another, supporters of jquery, capucinno et al addressed each of the many concerns that have been raised about those libraries in a manner that can be objectively evaluate.

boucher 17y ago
It's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who has already staked out an extreme position and offered little to no evidence to support that opinion. Also, it's spelled Cappuccino. And since David's superficial review contained virtually nothing of substance, there isn't much to objectively respond to. Example: <script src = "Frameworks/Objective-J/ObjectiveJ.js" type = "text/javascript"></script> > Nice markup. Yes, one file in 280 Slides (not Cappuccino) has spaces between the attribute, equals sign, and quote. We must be incompetent. > Yeah, I guess "false" is harder on the fingers. Or, maybe, we're going for an easier transition for people from an Objective-C background... with (new prototype_bug()) member = true; > Ugh. How insightful. Hilariously enough, this is actually doing real feature detection to detect a real bug in real browsers. > I've seen enough. So, in other words, he made no substantive evaluation. If you ask us questions, and aren't a dick about it, we're more than happy to give answers. We readily admit our own faults, and we're vocal about what our framework is not designed to do.
- Sensible 17y ago
  Your post reads like an attack on a person rather than anything else. I've read tons of posts by David Mark and I've found little wrong with them technically so describe his position as extreme does not mean he is automatically wrong on everything. Why pull things out of context and not provide a reference to the original? You complain about the tone of his posts (someone called it snarky) and then go on to post your own snarky comments, why?
  - boucher 17y ago
    The original was referenced above, an additional reference didn't seem necessary. I don't believe the quotes are out of context, that was the majority of his post. Just so you don't have to search for it, here is the link: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/17994a9a6f8f96e3 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/1799...
    - Sensible 17y ago
      I put mootools and jquery through jslint.com and jslint found so many things it didn't like that I wonder if the cristicism is indeed valid. Will you now publicly lambast Douglas Crockford for daring to indirectly criticise these so-called frameworks?
      - boucher 17y ago
        Doug readily admits that JSLint is opinionated. For example, it considers omitting a curly brace on a single line conditional to be an error. It considers fall through switch statements an error. It even considers differing opinions on whitespace to be an error. It's absolutely fine to have an automated tool to enforce style guidelines. But code which disagrees with that tool isn't necessarily bad. We have published style guidelines for our project, and they differ from Doug's. Those projects may very well have their own published guidelines. Doug has never said that code which fails JSLint is obviously retarded, or written by fools. He's never publicly insulted individuals because he didn't agree with their design decisions, or written mailing list posts saying someone has "never written a competent script in his life." So, what's your point?
        Sensible 17y ago
        You can easily dismiss the numerous non-style related errors that JSLint finds because of the claim that JSLint "opinionated". And you can dismiss the numerous non-style related errors that one finds because you can claim a flaw in poster's personality. The point being that I'm tired of reading responses that only focus on an insulting comment a poster makes in order to dismiss all valid technical criticism.
  - boucher 17y ago
    Admittedly, my point would have been better made without the sarcasm. When provoked, I can be as big an asshole as anyone else I suppose. Still, I think there's a difference between responding to an unprovoked attack thread, and starting one in the first place. In any case, we'd all be better off with a little less sarcasm and a lot more substance in this discussion, and for that I apologize.

boucher 17y ago

It's difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who has already staked out an extreme position and offered little to no evidence to support that opinion. Also, it's spelled Cappuccino. And since David's superficial review contained virtually nothing of substance, there isn't much to objectively respond to. Example: <script src = "Frameworks/Objective-J/ObjectiveJ.js" type = "text/javascript"></script> > Nice markup. Yes, one file in 280 Slides (not Cappuccino) has spaces between the attribute, equals sign, and quote. We must be incompetent. > Yeah, I guess "false" is harder on the fingers. Or, maybe, we're going for an easier transition for people from an Objective-C background... with (new prototype_bug()) member = true; > Ugh. How insightful. Hilariously enough, this is actually doing real feature detection to detect a real bug in real browsers. > I've seen enough. So, in other words, he made no substantive evaluation. If you ask us questions, and aren't a dick about it, we're more than happy to give answers. We readily admit our own faults, and we're vocal about what our framework is not designed to do.

Sensible 17y ago
Your post reads like an attack on a person rather than anything else. I've read tons of posts by David Mark and I've found little wrong with them technically so describe his position as extreme does not mean he is automatically wrong on everything. Why pull things out of context and not provide a reference to the original? You complain about the tone of his posts (someone called it snarky) and then go on to post your own snarky comments, why?
- boucher 17y ago
  The original was referenced above, an additional reference didn't seem necessary. I don't believe the quotes are out of context, that was the majority of his post. Just so you don't have to search for it, here is the link: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/17994a9a6f8f96e3 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/1799...
  - Sensible 17y ago
    I put mootools and jquery through jslint.com and jslint found so many things it didn't like that I wonder if the cristicism is indeed valid. Will you now publicly lambast Douglas Crockford for daring to indirectly criticise these so-called frameworks?
    - boucher 17y ago
      Doug readily admits that JSLint is opinionated. For example, it considers omitting a curly brace on a single line conditional to be an error. It considers fall through switch statements an error. It even considers differing opinions on whitespace to be an error. It's absolutely fine to have an automated tool to enforce style guidelines. But code which disagrees with that tool isn't necessarily bad. We have published style guidelines for our project, and they differ from Doug's. Those projects may very well have their own published guidelines. Doug has never said that code which fails JSLint is obviously retarded, or written by fools. He's never publicly insulted individuals because he didn't agree with their design decisions, or written mailing list posts saying someone has "never written a competent script in his life." So, what's your point?
      - Sensible 17y ago
        You can easily dismiss the numerous non-style related errors that JSLint finds because of the claim that JSLint "opinionated". And you can dismiss the numerous non-style related errors that one finds because you can claim a flaw in poster's personality. The point being that I'm tired of reading responses that only focus on an insulting comment a poster makes in order to dismiss all valid technical criticism.
- boucher 17y ago
  Admittedly, my point would have been better made without the sarcasm. When provoked, I can be as big an asshole as anyone else I suppose. Still, I think there's a difference between responding to an unprovoked attack thread, and starting one in the first place. In any case, we'd all be better off with a little less sarcasm and a lot more substance in this discussion, and for that I apologize.