David Mark comes across like a complete ass. And while his critique of jQuery might have some validity, his tone and attitude are such a turn off, and the consequence of him being "right" is not really all that important in the grand scheme of things.
People build cool shit with jQuery. That's all that is important. While "My Library" might be better, rate of adoption is sometimes more important than correctness. Specifically for something as trivial as javascript. If it's really important to him, why isn't he participating in making jQuery better since "My Library" is used by virtually nobody. From the read, it seems like his ego is getting in the way. And it's funny that, considering he hasn't done much noteworthy otherwise.
From my experience, that can be said of comp.lang.*
I haven't been to any of the comp.lang groups in a while though, but it doesn't look like I've missed much.
I'll give the regulars there this much: most of them really know what they're talking about. If I were John Resig, I'd take that message to head, not heart.
Do you want your js to be creating functions all the time? Is it worth it?
My personal stance, is that you simply don't need a javascript library. The browser differences are very small, and not rocket science to work with. Learning javascript > learning jquery | prototype | etc
I agree though, people build cool stuff with jquery. This thread is just people pointing out that if you care how fast your webapp runs, or how much memory it uses, then using a library is probably a bad idea.
I don't wanna. Because they're smug pricks. Next?
So just wait until John Resig to improve the code. He helped to start an movement. When Linux came out in 91, my friend said why did not I use other unix on pc but that crap. But almost 20 years later, Linux is alive and kicking...
Worst is better. As long as it propagates and more users bases, the improvement will come one day.
Don't forget technology is also an human activity. So social aspect of the technology acceptance is part of the equation.
I don't see that.
"David Mark comes across like a complete ass. And while his critique of jQuery might have some validity, his tone and attitude are such a turn off, and the consequence of him being "right" is not really all that important in the grand scheme of things."
Being right doesn't matter? That's some scheme you have there.
"People build cool shit with jQuery. That's all that is important. While "My Library" might be better, rate of adoption is sometimes more important than correctness. Specifically for something as trivial as javascript. If it's really important to him, why isn't he participating in making jQuery better since "My Library" is used by virtually nobody. From the read, it seems like his ego is getting in the way. And it's funny that, considering he hasn't done much noteworthy otherwise."
You don't seem to know anything about My Library (or David Mark for that matter.) Why don't you do some reading and try again.
Yet it's the overwhelming opinion of many here. Just look at these comments.
We're trying to do you a favor, man. Let me offer you the constructive criticism you didn't offer in your post:
If you propose a theory in the spirit of honest debate and camaraderie, and that theory is proven to be incorrect, no one remembers that you were the dude with the "wrong theory". All they remember is the right theory and that you helped to frame it.
On the other hand, if you put forth a theory like an asshole, and that theory is proven to be correct, you're still an asshole.
Sure, this probably doesn't seem fair from a meritocratic point of view. But it's one of the laws of the world we live in, same as gravity. I think you'd end up encountering a great deal more success if you started factoring it into your equations.
Although it is funny when the flame baiters start calling each other "wannabe" in the thread.
Could the code be faster? Sure. People often analyze libraries, identify a critical path that is limiting performance, and then zero in on the offending the code ... and then improve it.
I think it's find the author goes on a bit of a rant. Perhaps he'll inspire a few coders (or Resig himself) to address some of the criticisms by revising the code, and then everyone benefits.
A lot of its own code is hard to read exactly because it makes the code that uses it ridiculously compact and easy to read (e.g. liberal use of function overloading). In order to keep the library small, some of this code is not as clear and verbose as it should probably be.
However, jQuery is made by people who live and breathe JavaScript code. They use patterns that can look utterly foreign to people used to more conventional imperative languages (like logical operator short circuiting), but which are actually more readable if you know what it's doing.
As for performance, he points out a lot of things like "creating tons of functions on the fly" and "instantiating new objects for everything", but he doesn't actually prove that any of these points cause performance issues. It should be as simple as rewriting the code to get rid of these 'obvious' deficiencies and then benchmarking it. Which this person has not done.
I'll trust John Resig, the guy who is being paid by Mozilla to work on JavaScript full time, over some random internet dude with a chip on his shoulder.
resig: i hope that you see this post, ignore the flamebait, and notice how the suggestions don't look too bad to fix up. also, thanks for jquery -- it's awesome.
