Friday, June 13th, 2008

MooTools 1.2 Released

Category: MooTools

Many people wrote in to tell us about the recent MooTools 1.2 release and updated MooTools website. Coming nearly a year to the day after their last production release (1.11), Moo differentiates itself from other popular frameworks by cramming Prototype-inspired helpers and smooth effects into a small download. Weighing in at 90KB uncompressed, this bovine package is quite a bit smaller than Prototype by itself (124KB) or when combined with Scriptaculous and all its features (~280KB); it’s also a bit smaller than jQuery (97KB).

(Of course, comparing sizes is fairly meaningless due not only to minification and gzip’ing distorting the numbers but also the large variety of what’s in the “core” distribution of frameworks and what’s relegated to other plug-in’s, etc.).

Some of Moo 1.2’s notable new features include:

And more! I love the custom MooTools version builders for creating an optimized version of the MooTools core and MooTools plug-ins.

Milkshakes all around for the Moo team; congratulations on the new release.

Posted by Ben Galbraith at 5:00 am
24 Comments

+++--
3.6 rating from 76 votes

24 Comments »

Comments feed TrackBack URI

I love MooTools !

Comment by bazzilla — June 13, 2008

Mootools just keeps pluggin a long. It doesn’t get as much airtime as jQuery but it is an awesome framework.

Comment by SiteSmart — June 13, 2008

After 1.2 the developers can focus on the fancier stuff. The rock-solid API provides the perfect base for it. It already works nice as Ext bridge.

Comment by Harald — June 13, 2008

Sigh. The daily struggle against misinformation continues.
Yes, jQuery uncompressed is a bit larger, but minified+gzipped it actually weighs in at 16.3kb to MooTools 19.5kb. Also, using the full Scriptaculous library in the file size estimate is misleading as well. Scriptaculous is modular, meaning you don’t have to include the whole thing. With Prototype+Effects minified+gzipped the file size is 27.1kb less than ~10kb difference between all of them. Throw in services like Google’s CDN and size is hardly an issue. As Ben stated, comparing sizes is fairly meaningless.

Comment by jdalton — June 13, 2008

I am currently using moo 1.2 beta 2 with Ext 2.0 and loving it…

Comment by ifwdev — June 13, 2008

seems like there hasn’t been a meaningful update to scriptaculous in forever. effects are way buggy in IE too… I’ll have to checkout moo…

Comment by boodie — June 13, 2008

The race for smaller code is always great and all, but really now…Most people have high speed internet… If it was like in the baud days maybe then…

Comment by theCrandallster — June 13, 2008

jdalton: Was an attempt to acknowledge Moo’s claim at being the “compact” of the full-featured frameworks whilst at the same time putting the value of such a claim in perspective (i.e., basically irrelevant given differing features of frameworks, dramatic compression of minification/gzip, etc.). Given the broad disclaimers following, mebbe calling that paragraph misinformation is a bit dramatic. ;-)

Comment by Ben Galbraith — June 13, 2008

Who cares about 10kb to 30kb when google will host the files ;)

Comment by Harald — June 13, 2008

@Ben Galbraith, I am on your side (few last line of my prev comment).

Comment by jdalton — June 13, 2008

I like the automatic animation queueing. That’s a great idea.

Comment by Nosredna — June 13, 2008

The last time I looked at it they had made it hard to use with code previously written for 1.11. Hopefully the harness you had to download separately has been integrated into the actual 1.2 release. If so I’ll definitely give it another look, but my 1.11 application currently is over 1000 lines long, and died horribly the last time I tried it.

Comment by starkraving — June 13, 2008

@ifwdev :

I am currently using moo 1.2 beta 2 with Ext 2.0 and loving it…

Ho do you do this ? Did you wrote your own ext/mootools adapter ?

Comment by darkraver — June 13, 2008

great work, congratulations for the release – this is by far the most succinct and intuitive framework that I have tried and it just got all that much better with v1.2

as for compatibility with 1.11… well, there are only a bunch of changes… Harald has kindly prepared a layer to help here:

http://digitarald.de/journal/38150523/mootools-1-1-to-1-2-compatibility-layer/

But i’d suggest – refactor what you can instead. I got about 5000+ lines of 1.11 code to go through but will do so gladly (when I get some free time).

Comment by coda — June 13, 2008

@boodie, @Ben Galbraith and @Harald

Is not all only about the bandwidth, or server space, is about how much memory browser allocate to the script, a smaller footprint will make the browser faster or better said :less slower. This is all in user (site visitor) benefit.

When you start adding your own code, things get worser. So with all computing power and high bandwidth, I think is better to have as small code as possible.

…just my opinion

Comment by rborn — June 13, 2008

@ darkraver:

There is a great Ext adapter for 1.11 and this is the new one for Mootools 1.2: http://og5.net/christoph/?cat=articles

Comment by csuwldcat — June 13, 2008

That Ext adapter looks cool. Is it solid? The author makes it sound pretty alpha.

Comment by Nosredna — June 13, 2008

perfect js-lib for easy & comfort coding!

Comment by (v) — June 14, 2008

Great. Now it seems powerful.

Comment by onder — June 14, 2008

rborn: I dare that the size of the script-files has a lot of impact on the size it takes in the browser-memory (especially with sizes between 10kb and 50kb). Its more about the object it creates, the prototypes it extends or the elements it injects.

Comment by Harald — June 15, 2008

@csuwldcat
thanks, it looks great and worth a try

Comment by darkraver — June 15, 2008

Javascript Frameworks that f*&% up the namespace and monkeypatch the core javascript objects need to die. Is it a coincidence that MooTools and Prototype are the only 2 frameworks that don’t work together? More like bad programming.

Comment by jpcx01 — June 16, 2008

@jpcx01: There are performance benefits to extending native JavaScript base classes, though if you prefer to use a namespaced library, you can always use YUI, jQuery, Ext, Uize or many others.

The reason I’m commenting is actually to announce an article I wrote on The True Tribe giving a brief overview of the history of MooTools and talking about some of the big changes and improvements this time around:

http://www.thetruetribe.com/2008/06/whats-new-in-mootools-12.php

Comment by jdempcy — June 17, 2008

Thank you for this intresting piece.
cheers

Comment by Aphrodisiac — August 11, 2008

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.