Why No Libraries?

[Alan Gutierrez]

I can't imagine a language that is that vehiment about not asking
questions that pertain to libraries. It is true that, in a C++
newsgroup, you will have to redirect an occasional question that is
strictly and MFC question, but in general, comparing libraries is
educational and gives people library code they can reference.

comp.lang.shell discussions quickly evolve into comparisons of different
solutions for different tools. That was a way to expand knowledge.

If this is a way to deal with needy newbies, there are better ways to do
that.

 

[David Mark]

  I can't imagine a language that is that vehiment about not asking
questions that pertain to libraries.

You are a bit confused. I suggest you review this recent thread in
which the poster wanted help with patterns that cause memory leaks:-

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/deb21d176dab3f52#

Note that attempts to help the OP were consistently thwarted because
the examples were all tangled up in jQuery. It's a rare case where
participants in this group will take the time to slog through dubious
library code to determine whether an example does what the questioner
assumes it does.

It is true that, in a C++
newsgroup, you will have to redirect an occasional question that is
strictly and MFC question, but in general, comparing libraries is
educational and gives people library code they can reference.

Do you realize how much comparison of libraries goes on here? This
group is the largest clearinghouse of (real) information about JS
libraries on the Web.

And don't get sucked in to the non-argument that anyone who finds
major faults in the common GP libraries is against any form of
library. That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
Kenny who fits all three).

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

You are a bit confused. I suggest you review this recent thread in
which the poster wanted help with patterns that cause memory leaks:-

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/deb21d176dab3f52#

Note that attempts to help the OP were consistently thwarted because
the examples were all tangled up in jQuery. It's a rare case where
participants in this group will take the time to slog through dubious
library code to determine whether an example does what the questioner
assumes it does.

Interesting observations on jQuery 1.4.2 and leaks. Did anyone post a
bug report to jQuery? It seems like it would be valuable to the wider
JavaScript community.

And don't get sucked in to the non-argument that anyone who finds
major faults in the common GP libraries is against any form of
library. That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
Kenny who fits all three).

Ad hominem much?

 

[David Mark]

Interesting observations on jQuery 1.4.2 and leaks. Did anyone post a
bug report to jQuery?

Don't bother. They can't/won't fix simple problems. Trying to get
them to rewrite their event handling will be pointless. It's all
tangled up in some nonsense called "Live" at this point.

Also, it is unlikely that this problem is specific to 1.4.2. It
almost certainly affects some or all of their previous do-overs.

It seems like it would be valuable to the wider
JavaScript community.

You are welcome to try, but you should take heed of advice from those
who have already gone down that road (many times with respect to this
particular library).

Ad hominem much?

Repeat yourself much? At least you are accurate this time. Of
course, as a newcomer you are unaware of Kenny's history. Again, take
heed and be careful who you attempt to defend (at least until you get
your bearings straight).

 

[Alan Gutierrez]

Don't bother. They can't/won't fix simple problems. Trying to get
them to rewrite their event handling will be pointless. It's all
tangled up in some nonsense called "Live" at this point.

Also, it is unlikely that this problem is specific to 1.4.2. It
almost certainly affects some or all of their previous do-overs.


You are welcome to try, but you should take heed of advice from those
who have already gone down that road (many times with respect to this
particular library).

Seems like it is worth a shot. If it is that bad, maybe it is worth a
fork. The jQuery library makes such pretty, pretty things. If it leaks
on IE6, that probably doesn't matter to my projects. I don't develop for
IE6. If that is their attitude, then it is shared.

Sadly, jQuery has gone to a web based forum, and I am not setup to
consume those.

Repeat yourself much? At least you are accurate this time. Of
course, as a newcomer you are unaware of Kenny's history. Again, take
heed and be careful who you attempt to defend (at least until you get
your bearings straight).

It's not a defense of anyone, it is simply pointing out that this is
transparently, ad hominem. There are those that disagree with me, but
they are dishonorable men of limited intelligence.

 

[Kenneth Tilton]

Ah, Kenny "Triple-Threat" Tilton. I like it!

kt

ps. do a lot of spammer neophytes put up a site like this in 10 weeks
part-time?: http://teamalgebra.com/

pps. Does David Mark have anything of that complexity? Libraries are
easy, esp. one with simple jobs like thinly wrapping html/css. Do an
application some time and you'll learn some respect for your superiors.

k

 

[David Mark]

Ah, Kenny "Triple-Threat" Tilton. I like it!

You are certainly a hat trick. Unfortunately, the hat is a dunce cap
and you only do one trick: putting your foot in your mouth.

[...]

ps. do a lot of spammer neophytes put up a site like this in 10 weeks
part-time?:http://teamalgebra.com/

Yes. Yes, they do. Then there is long, slow and painful reentry into
the planet's atmosphere and ultimately a splat. Best of luck with
your future as a grease spot.

pps. Does David Mark have anything of that complexity?
Yes.

Libraries are
easy, esp. one with simple jobs like thinly wrapping html/css.

Let me see if I get this straight. Sometimes, late in the day, I get
a little tired and confused. Are you, Kenny, asserting that writing
something like My Library is *easy*? Assuming that means easy for
*you*, you've just performed your one trick again.

Do an
application some time and you'll learn some respect for your superiors.

And, if it wasn't for your scorching case of ADHD, you would have seen
that on my Examples page, there are more than enough building blocks
to build a desktop-like application (among many other things). Is it
your assertion that building such components is somehow easier than
cobbling them together to form an application?

If you are correct, then - for example - why are so many jQuery users
clamoring for something called a "theme roller" to allow them to
cobble together applications with jQueryUI? And why would anyone use
such widgets at all if they are easier to write than the
applications? It seems to me that (once again) you've got the wrong
end of the stick.

 

[Kenneth Tilton]

Ah, Kenny "Triple-Threat" Tilton. I like it!

You are certainly a hat trick. Unfortunately, the hat is a dunce cap
and you only do one trick: putting your foot in your mouth.

[...]

ps. do a lot of spammer neophytes put up a site like this in 10 weeks
part-time?:http://teamalgebra.com/

Yes. Yes, they do. Then there is long, slow and painful reentry into
the planet's atmosphere and ultimately a splat. Best of luck with
your future as a grease spot.

pps. Does David Mark have anything of that complexity?
Yes.

Libraries are
easy, esp. one with simple jobs like thinly wrapping html/css.

Let me see if I get this straight. Sometimes, late in the day, I get
a little tired and confused. Are you, Kenny, asserting that writing
something like My Library is *easy*? Assuming that means easy for
*you*, you've just performed your one trick again.

Do an
application some time and you'll learn some respect for your superiors.

And, if it wasn't for your scorching case of ADHD, you would have seen
that on my Examples page, there are more than enough building blocks
to build a desktop-like application (among many other things).

yeah, it must be ADHD, cuz I did look and I did not see much. Maybe take
a break from Usenet and make some more widgets?

Is it
your assertion that building such components is somehow easier than
cobbling them together to form an application?

Boy you are dense. If I cobble together your components will I then have
a chess program that can beat Deep Blue?

If you are correct, then - for example - why are so many jQuery users
clamoring for something called a "theme roller" to allow them to
cobble together applications with jQueryUI?
And why would anyone use
such widgets at all if they are easier to write than the
applications?

So they can save their energy for the applications. Do I have to teach
you /everything/? They are also saying "we want qooxdoo", tho they do
not know it. Yet.


kt

 

[David Mark]

You are certainly a hat trick.  Unfortunately, the hat is a dunce cap
and you only do one trick: putting your foot in your mouth.

[...]

ps. do a lot of spammer neophytes put up a site like this in 10 weeks
part-time?:http://teamalgebra.com/

Yes.  Yes, they do.  Then there is long, slow and painful reentry into
the planet's atmosphere and ultimately a splat.  Best of luck with
your future as a grease spot.

Let me see if I get this straight.  Sometimes, late in the day, I get
a little tired and confused.  Are you, Kenny, asserting that writing
something like My Library is *easy*?  Assuming that means easy for
*you*, you've just performed your one trick again.

And, if it wasn't for your scorching case of ADHD, you would have seen
that on my Examples page, there are more than enough building blocks
to build a desktop-like application (among many other things).

yeah, it must be ADHD, cuz

Definitely. Cuz.

I did look and I did not see much.

I'd look again.

Maybe take
a break from Usenet and make some more widgets?

Are you blind too? Well, that can't be as you've made your contempt
for blind people well know. Just another TV baby.

Boy you are dense. If I cobble together your components will I then have
a chess program that can beat Deep Blue?

Can your algebra tutorial play chess at all?

So they can save their energy for the applications.

Those must be some energy-sapping applications they have in mind.
They've been waiting forever. I recently saw a comment to the effect
of: what can we do except donate more more? Of course, that was
likely a shill as they claimed to have just sent another $100.

Keep pumping in quarters. The game will start eventually.

Do I have to teach
you /everything/? They are also saying "we want qooxdoo", tho they do
not know it. Yet.

IF that were the case, you can bet they'd be using qooxdoo (or Dojo or
ExtJS or whatever). They're hooked on feeling, high on
believing...

 

[Kenneth Tilton]

David Mark wrote:
library. That's simply a common misstatement of the facts, usually
put forth by spammers, frustrated neophytes or out-and-out loons (see
Kenny who fits all three).
Ah, Kenny "Triple-Threat" Tilton. I like it!
You are certainly a hat trick. Unfortunately, the hat is a dunce cap
and you only do one trick: putting your foot in your mouth.
[...]
ps. do a lot of spammer neophytes put up a site like this in 10 weeks
part-time?:http://teamalgebra.com/
Yes. Yes, they do. Then there is long, slow and painful reentry into
the planet's atmosphere and ultimately a splat. Best of luck with
your future as a grease spot.
pps. Does David Mark have anything of that complexity?
Yes.
Libraries are
easy, esp. one with simple jobs like thinly wrapping html/css.
Let me see if I get this straight. Sometimes, late in the day, I get
a little tired and confused. Are you, Kenny, asserting that writing
something like My Library is *easy*? Assuming that means easy for
*you*, you've just performed your one trick again.
Do an
application some time and you'll learn some respect for your superiors.
And, if it wasn't for your scorching case of ADHD, you would have seen
that on my Examples page, there are more than enough building blocks
to build a desktop-like application (among many other things).

yeah, it must be ADHD, cuz

Definitely. Cuz.

I did look and I did not see much.

I'd look again.

Maybe take
a break from Usenet and make some more widgets?

Are you blind too? Well, that can't be as you've made your contempt
for blind people well know. Just another TV baby.

Boy you are dense. If I cobble together your components will I then have
a chess program that can beat Deep Blue?

Can your algebra tutorial play chess at all?

So they can save their energy for the applications.

Those must be some energy-sapping applications they have in mind.
They've been waiting forever. I recently saw a comment to the effect
of: what can we do except donate more more? Of course, that was
likely a shill as they claimed to have just sent another $100.

Keep pumping in quarters. The game will start eventually.

Do I have to teach
you /everything/? They are also saying "we want qooxdoo", tho they do
not know it. Yet.

IF that were the case, you can bet they'd be using qooxdoo (or Dojo or
ExtJS or whatever). They're hooked on feeling, high on
believing...

I am sorry, you have had your three flames for the today. See you tomorrow*.

kt

* You might consider my Platinum Plan if you think you will want this
level of abuse regularly.

 

[David Mark]

David Mark wrote:
;...]

IF that were the case, you can bet they'd be using qooxdoo (or Dojo or
ExtJS or whatever).  They're hooked on feeling, high on
believing...  

I am sorry, you have had your three flames for the today. See you tomorrow*.

The group's closed tomorrow. Please stay home.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

[...] If [jQuery] is that bad, maybe it is worth a fork.

Strange thinking. If software is too bad, it is worth a *rewrite*, at most.


PointedEars

 

[JR]

Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
  -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <[email protected]>

'Kangax' is a Prototype.js core developer and he does know Javascript
a lot!
http://perfectionkills.com/

Therefore, Thomas, that quote after your signature has a problem with
one of its assertions and thus it represents a fallacy.

 

[David Mark]

'Kangax' is a Prototype.js core developer and he does know Javascript
a lot!http://perfectionkills.com/

Therefore, Thomas, that quote after your signature has a problem with
one of its assertions and thus it represents a fallacy.

Not really as I believe the quote predates Kangax' involvement in that
dubious project. It's true that, as I attempted to do for Dojo,
Kangax tried to help Prototype.

AIUI, the outcomes were eerily similar. In a nutshell, both projects
were designed by people who didn't/don't know Javascript (e.g. Scott
Stephenson and Alex Russell). Those facts are self-evident by the
histories of the respective projects (and their staggeringly poor code
as it exists to this day). Furthermore, when was the last time (if
ever) you saw any of them in here defending their efforts? They
either know they are defenseless or actually believe that because each
project snared a certain amount of users (Prototype more than Dojo),
that they must have done a good job.

The developers of each project couldn't grasp the idea that much of
their work needed to be torn up and rewritten and thus blocked
attempts to do so. Sad stories, both (particularly for the users of
these scripts).

 

[David Mark]

Not really as I believe the quote predates Kangax' involvement in that
dubious project.  It's true that, as I attempted to do for Dojo,
Kangax tried to help Prototype.

AIUI, the outcomes were eerily similar.  In a nutshell, both projects
were designed by people who didn't/don't know Javascript (e.g. Scott
Stephenson and Alex Russell).

Sorry, Sam, not Scott. The guy's been so invisible since Prototype
came out that I forgot his name.