4 ms·

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 public

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
    Then why not stop including insults with your technical criticisms? If you include insults, purely stylistic criticism, and valid technical criticism all in an orgy of excited and angry words, people aren't going to take the time to dissect the actually interesting bits. And, let's not forget, you're the one who claimed that jQuery and Prototype fail horribly on JSLint without providing any information on the actual errors, so the burden to prove they are not just style errors is still on you.
  - boucher 17y ago
    Point out what you think is a valid technical criticism in the code review at the top of this thread. I'll respond to it.

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
  Then why not stop including insults with your technical criticisms? If you include insults, purely stylistic criticism, and valid technical criticism all in an orgy of excited and angry words, people aren't going to take the time to dissect the actually interesting bits. And, let's not forget, you're the one who claimed that jQuery and Prototype fail horribly on JSLint without providing any information on the actual errors, so the burden to prove they are not just style errors is still on you.
- boucher 17y ago
  Point out what you think is a valid technical criticism in the code review at the top of this thread. I'll respond to it.