Comments on: Why I don’t use jQuery

By: voyance

voyance — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:58:02 +0000

Good article and to ‘free’: what a commentary…what purpose does that serve?

By: W.ordPress » A prueba: Frameworks Javascript

W.ordPress » A prueba: Frameworks Javascript — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:51:31 +0000

[...] paso, también recordé un artículo de Kyle Neath, en el que reflexionaba sobre el anuncio de lanzamiento de jQuery 1.1.3, tentadoramente titulado [...]

By: Constantine

Constantine — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:29:26 +0000

Nice

By: A prueba: Frameworks Javascript — yukei.net

A prueba: Frameworks Javascript — yukei.net — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:56:10 +0000

[...] paso, también recordé un artículo de Kyle Neath, en el que reflexionaba sobre el anuncio de lanzamiento de jQuery 1.1.3, tentadoramente titulado [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:27:07 +0000

“I have found jQuery’s community/authors way more helpful and willing to help compared to other frameworks (points at MooTools).”

There’s an extensive debate about that in ajaxian.com, in which I participated. Basically I just found unfair the popularity jQuery haves, and the misunderstood potential of mootools, because you have to learn 1h more how a real OO framework works to make the things right (if you have no experience with frameworks), and with jQuery you can do your effect for retarded people. I personally prefer to understand what I’m doing, because a js framework is for devs not for designers, even if they want to add cool effects to their blogs. Instead of that, use mooFX designers!

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 00:36:49 +0000

I have found jQuery’s community/authors way more helpful and willing to help compared to other frameworks (points at MooTools).

Of course, it doesn’t say anything about the code itself. I have used both, preferred MooTools for a while, but then I saw that in most projects I was working on, jQuery fitted better. Unless you’re writing science project in Javascript, I’d say DOM manipulation is the most important thing a framework should highlight. It’s the most practical.

By: riper

riper — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:28:15 +0000

you blame them just because they made a marketing anouncement…
the lib is great, maybe “800% faster…” doesn’t mean anything but it still a great lib

By: Andy Kant

Andy Kant — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:27:03 +0000

@Nate
I’d agree with Kyle that a lot of decisions are based on non-technical reasons. Another example: All the hate for Microsoft despite that their development technologies (C#, .NET, CLR/DLR, Visual Studio) are head and shoulders above almost most other technologies. C# is probably one of the best things to ever happen to software (including the Mono implementation), but a lot of people shrug it off due to disliking Microsoft.

As far as JS frameworks though, I tend to prefer Mootools as well. Nothing against jQuery or any other framework, I just prefer Mootools’ organization, cleanliness, and coding style.

Honestly, as dumb it sounds, the main reason that I don’t use jQuery is because its source code isn’t particularly readable. Inconsistent white-space and obscure internal object naming makes it difficult to navigate.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:19:27 +0000

Casey, exactly where did I discredit jQuery library?

By: Casey Wise

Casey Wise — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:01:38 +0000

As a programmer, I’m reading your thoughts to glean something insightful from your programmer brain. This article raised the question in my head “Why would Kyle Neath seek to discredit the jQuery library?”

We tested MooTools, Dojo, ProtoType, Ext and jQuery (they had just released 1.1.2). I honestly couldn’t tell a difference between them. Our development team picked jQuery because we saw how active John and his team were/are in the jQuery Google discussion group.

Regards,
Casey Wise