Comments on: A few days with YUI

By: jminkler

jminkler — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:42:50 +0000

YUI is not meant to be a replacement for jquery, or even a js framework, its for UI widgets.

By: Walter Rumsby

Walter Rumsby — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:50:55 +0000

You could actually rewrite the YUI example as:

YAHOO.util.Event.addListener(’star-activator’, ‘click’,
function() {
YAHOO.util.Dom.getElementsByClassName(’star-rating’,
function(el) {
YAHOO.util.Dom.addClass(el, ‘active’)
}
);
}
);

By: Noel da Costa

Noel da Costa — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:09:59 +0000

I'm likeing Mootools visually and syntactically, but it's missing one killer feature that YUI provides... namely the DataTable. Does anyone know:

a. whether there's a DataTable with sorting and pagination for MooTools (or whether this would even be feasible with Mootools framework)

b. whether it would be possible to use MooTools in general for GUI stuff, but then switch to YUI for handling data tables?

Ta.

By: Andy Kant

Andy Kant — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:29:09 +0000

We’re using YUI on a project at work. The namespacing is kind of a pain, but you can always alias the namespaces like Phil said. The only reason we’re using YUI over Mootools or Prototype is the quality of the documentation (which can go a long way in the usefulness of a framework).

By: zhaozexin

zhaozexin — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:24:28 +0000

you can do it like this:

YAHOO.util.Dom.get(’star-activator’).onclick = function(){
var raters = YAHOO.util.Dom.getElementsByClassName(’star-rating’);
YAHOO.util.Dom.addClass(raters, ‘active’);
}

YUI and prototype are two flavor!

By: Kyle

Kyle — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:35:02 +0000

Mike: If you’ve followed my blog, you’d see that I have indeed checked out Flex. However, it’s not really an issue when describing Javascript frameworks. The “browser compatibility” issues are null and void if you use most frameworks (I’ve not had an issue with MooTools, Prototype, etc).

I know Adobe/Macromedia loves touting the “end” of browser compatibility problems, but really we’re just trading browser compatibility with Flash Player compatibility at the end of the day :)

By: Mike Potter

Mike Potter — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 16:24:25 +0000

Have you checked out Adobe Flex? It removes the browser compatibility problems by relying on the Flash Player to display the UI.

http://www.flex.org/

Mike
(I work for Adobe)

By: Phil Freo

Phil Freo — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:32:15 +0000

I would agree with you on many points, but the long namespace is much helped when you do things such as:

YUD = YAHOO.util.Dom;
YUE = YAHOO.util.Event;
function $(el) { return YUD.get(el); }

It’s annoying to have to do this at the top of your JS files, but assuming your code is wrapped in an anonymous function, you get shorter code and a contained namespace. I do miss chain-ability and being about to do “div#myID.myclass”. Check out http://dedchain.dustindiaz.com/ for this.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:57:55 +0000

MooTools
$(’star-activator’).onclick = function () { $$(’.star-rating’).addClass(’active’); };

Even shorter!

By: Matthew Pennell

Matthew Pennell — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:06:20 +0000

jQuery also (kind of) do free hosting of their source code via Amazon’s S3 - aside from the DDOS attack that took out their DNS and screwed those links a few months back, it’s another plus point for what would be my library of choice.