D
David Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/my-l...52b61/4032f3e0393049ad?hl=en#4032f3e0393049ad
Really one for the books (or book anyway).
Really one for the books (or book anyway).
http://groups.google.com/group/my-library-general-discussion/browse_t...
Really one for the books (or book anyway).
http://groups.google.com/group/my-l...52b61/4032f3e0393049ad?hl=en#4032f3e0393049ad
Really one for the books (or book anyway).
S.T. said:(yawn) Just more javascript martyrdom out of you.
Too bad, assuming your library is actually useful. If a tree falls in
the woods....
SteveYoungGoogle said:It's the usual garbage:
"All JavaScript libraries are rubbish, I'll write a really good one"
"All JavaScript books are rubbish. I'll write a really good one"
"Dojo is the best JavaScript library. I'll make it really good"
Nothing came of any of this so now we're back at:
Matt said:If your goal is to see increased adoption of what you consider to be a
technically better library, you're doing it wrong.
Calling it "technically netter" is really
selling it short, don't you think?
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.