Comments on: EJ: Essential JavaScript The Library

By: Michael Geary

Michael Geary — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:53:06 +0000

@Bob: “…but I like libraries that let you keep native JS syntax…”

I’m a bit confused. Most of the JavaScript libraries I’ve seen use native JS syntax. They’re not compiling some other language into JavaScript.

Which library doesn’t use native JS syntax?

By: Bob Gulian

Bob Gulian — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:27:30 +0000

Just my preference, but I like libraries that let you keep native JS syntax like YUI. I don’t even like $. This is the opinion of most of the developers on comp.lang.javascript too. I’m sure the Prototype crowd will appreciate this library though.

By: Hulkster

Hulkster — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:20:30 +0000

Links (15 Oct), Web, LUA, .NET, Office 2007 Stuff

General/Web Stuff Windows Vista Ships with .NET FX 3.0 and IIS7 Built-in [Via: ScottGu ] Sun open sources

By: Christopher Steen

Christopher Steen — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 04:11:37 +0000

Link Listing – November 14, 2006

EJ: Essential JavaScript The Library [Via: Dion Almaer ] Apache Axis2 1.1 Released [Via: Anil John ]…

By: Robert Nyman

Robert Nyman — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:45:03 +0000

I’m Robert Nyman, author of the library. Regarding essential: it is all in the eye in the beholder. Some people want large libraries with lots of functionality and others just want the core functionality.

And as is mentioned several times by me in the comments, the name is ironic; no library can be the library that solves any problem and caters to any need.

The library in this case consists of functions that are essential in the sense that no matter the web site and interaction you’re going to use, these will be the core functions making it happen. To me, they are very useful and therefore I packaged them for anyone’s who’s interested for their convenience, that’s all. :-)

Interested in more complex libraries that does more for you? Please take a look at JavaScript frameworks – concept vs. code libraries.

Rich,

“I want to focus on building my app, not writing code.”

Eh, ok. Let me humbly ask these questions then: What is building an app if you’re not writing code? Adjusting settings?

Tom,

Regarding the naming: please read above and in the comments in my web site.

And yes, that is indeed a true distinction that they deal with the DOM; JavaScript is definitely more than a web browser environment, although that’s where most people will use it.

By: Tom Trenka

Tom Trenka — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:09:30 +0000

Not for nothing, but…absolutely none of those methods are “essential”, and what’s worse is that they really aren’t “JS”. A better name would be “DOMEssentials”, since they all deal with DOM manipulation. There’s nothing wrong with not wanting to use a library that’s already out there, but I do think that there’s something wrong with creating libraries for the sake of creating libraries. I’m with Joyce Park on this: why do web developers always want to create “the One”?
I get tired of saying it but there’s a lot more to JS than just a browser environment.

By: Andrew Herron

Andrew Herron — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:13:08 +0000

Hasn’t he heard of Mootools? It’s as lightweight or robust as you want it to be, and you can get it compressed!

By: Godo

Godo — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:03:48 +0000

The amount of code seems to be inverse proportional to the amount of phylosophy that comes with it.

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:38:44 +0000

Essential? Obviously our definitions differ. A full library has indeed made my day and helped me out tremendously. I want to focus on building my app, not writing code.