I think you could get your points across better here by requiring less effort of your readers. It’s true that you and others have made many well-reasoned criticisms of jQuery and other libraries on CLJ that can be accessed by searching the archive. However, it takes a lot of effort for someone new to CLJ to get to the nub of the technical arguments in amongst all the other stuff, and many people simply will not bother.

One thing CLJ proves is that you spend *a lot* of time arguing against libraries like jQuery. Who do you want to influence? If you want to influence more people, then perhaps you could write an article or articles with your criticisms and publish it/them on the internet. That would be something you and others could point people to, which would in the end save you time and effort.

Finally, your ‘My Library’ was something public that backed up your credibility and the fact that you have taken down the public site for it is unfortunate, though I’m sure you had your reasons.

I guess I misunderstood. You’re tripping over their louse applications. I thought you were actually reading their scripts and busting a vein in your forehead.

Sure. Eye C Lidlessness. 9_9 Seriously, accept the fact that you’re not entitled to know personal identification details of people you interact with in an anonymous context.

“Yes, absolutely.”

You’re kidding. So, if a client pays a developer to develop functionality, and that functionality is developed and works, the client got ripped off because there’s a library you don’t like in use? Really? Really? Doesn’t, um, the fact that the functionality works count for a heck of a lot more than whether or not you like jQuery?

“[a whole bunch of unsubstantiated claims about the ins and outs of jQuery internals]”

…

“Depends on your perspective.”

You’re claiming that JS has become popular quite despite the libraries that have become *popular* in the course of JS becoming popular. That is the meaning of success that I’m discussing. How is it possible for JS to become popular quite despite the libraries that became popular in the course of JS becoming popular? Thinking about it again, it’s not just an unlikely coincidence, it’s a logical impossibility. On the question of whether these libraries propelled or hindered JS’ popularity, the success of other pursuits of those libraries is beside the point.

“LOL. You are still on page one. Keep reading…”

I’m still waiting for a compelling reason. Not to mention a link to your library and some documentation of other library authors grabbing code from it. Still waiting.

“You saw nothing of the sort.”

Oh. 9_9

Because I have to *use* the Web like everyone else. These scripts typically get in the way. For instance, ever try to sign up for Reddit at 800×600? Try it and watch some silly jQuery “modal” foil every attempt until you adjust your monitor settings. That’s one fairly typical example. These sites usually eat my PC’s resources alive as well, which is very irritating as they don’t usually do anything special to justify such an intrusion. And, of course, turning scripting off is not usually an option (due to incompetent designs.)

“As a matter of fact, as far as I know I uniquely occupy this particular handle, whereas I use a fairly common name in “real” life, which itself is not my legal name (which I share with a highly paid professional athlete)”

Okay, fair enough, but couldn’t you have used a middle initial or something?

“Really? So, if a client requests a set of functionality, and they receive that functionality, the fact that jQuery was used would somehow invalidate receipt of that functionality?”

Yes, absolutely. The script is full of mistakes and constantly patched. For example, take any site built with jQuery 1.2x (lots of them in the last couple of years.) At some point, the developers realized they had designed a time bomb and rewrote large chunks of code that was too complicated for most of the sites to begin with. This placed an undue burden on the site owners who should not have had to upgrade and re-test such a beast in their site’s lifetime. And, of course, 1.3x (two strikes so far) is nowhere near competent at this point and the authors keep piling more junk on top of it. It’s positively ludicrous as proper cross-browser scripting techniques have been around for a decade. As with most of these scripts, they are designed to work in a handful of modern desktop browsers in their default configurations. That’s how they are tested and approved, yet the Web features a far more diverse set of environments. A good example would be IE6, which jQuery has never come close to handling properly. They talk about discontinuing support for it every other month. Odd for a popular browser that has been out for a decade. Also, try disabling ActiveX for the Web (a fairly common configuration in corporate environments) in any version of IE and watch half the Web break as jQuery falls flat on its face. Doesn’t get much more futile than that. And I don’t mean harmless script errors, I mean unusable documents as jQuery provides no mechanism for feature detection and progressive enhancement (save for a half dozen useless flags, which change meaning every other release and are largely ignored by app developers anyway.)

“And just happened to make such “follies” great successes in the process? That’s quite an unlikely coincidence.”

Depends on your perspective. Success is relative. I put it to you that jQuery, Prototype, etc. are miserable failures at what they set out to do. They do *not* make browser scripting easier. They only provide an illusion that fools the uninitiated (their target market.) How can anything that fouls up attributes/properties, IE without ActiveX, IE in quirks mode, etc. be considered successful in this area? They just multiply the complications, as evidenced in their support forums and the myriad examples detailed in CLJ.

“…who so far has demonstrated to me only that he knows the difference between properties and attributes…”

LOL. You are still on page one. Keep reading…

“What I saw on the linked archives was you yelling at a bunch of people, and those people being disinterested in dealing with your tone.”

You saw nothing of the sort. I’ve never YELLED at anyone there. As for disinterest, you seem to be cherry-picking the responses from jQuery fans, who were part of the problem, not part of the solution. Keep reading and you’ll find that many of them changed their tone over the years. This was hardly an overnight process. Many others agreed all along but were tired of arguing about jQuery and Prototype by the time I took up the cause. It’s all part of the public record for those who care to look…

This comment interface is making this conversation too hard to follow. In short, do some research. CLJ is an excellent place to start. Search for “jQuery” or “Prototype” or “MooTools” and read what other professionals have to say about them. It will scare you straight. ;)

“You’ve been an enormous help BTW, which is truly surprising.”

I don’t know why it’s surprising. I’m quite a bit more polite than you, which is astonishing.

You are hiding your identity from the world. That puts a serious dent in your credibility. Perhaps you are just being silly or perhaps you are less than confident in your message.

“Right after you got done explaining the reason you don’t take handles seriously is because you can research “real” names?”

Didn’t say anything like that. And I’d like to add that these blog comments are the least effective form of communication since paper airplanes. It’s no way to exchange ideas.

“Then you should know their handles too. See how silly this is?”

That’s complete nonsense. I generally don’t take to handles. I’ve made an exception in your case as you seem to have something on the ball (an exception for handles.)

“I didn’t say you were. In fact, I pretty much said you weren’t, and ought to be. If your concern is that “frauds” are “defrauding” the “public”, and you believe you have some unique or valuable insight into this “fraud”, don’t you have the responsibility to educate the “public”?”

LOL. What do you think I have been doing here? You’ve been an enormous help BTW, which is truly surprising. This site is usually good for nothing but shrillibusters against anyone who speaks out against lousy scripts like jQuery and the futility of building with them on the Web.

“So you’re a hypocrite?”

Obviously not. I *never* promoted it. On the contrary, I told people not to use it, but rather to learn from it. The primary lesson was that the “major” libraries were doing virtually everything wrong. For those paying attention, browsers came and went over the years, yet my library needed virtually no maintenance. Contrast that with the “majors.” Constantly updating and re-testing huge, complicated and inter-dependent scripts is expensive, especially for those who don’t understand the first thing about what goes on under their hoods. Get it? You really should read CLJ more often. ;) Alternatively, read the jQuery forums. Seems most “programmers” who use jQuery do not even own debuggers (including the authors.) It’s not pretty and the experience should shock you back to reality.

“[citation needed]”

Yes, you really should get out more. This site is not a good source of information on the state of browser scripting.

“Delusions of grandeur? No one is defending their libraries because no one takes you seriously.”

I could just keep repeating the same line for each of these comments. Do you follow anything but what Ajaxian reports? Nobody serious takes the information on this site seriously.

“Forgive me if I’m not inclined to just take your word for it. How’s about we see it?”

LOL. We?! You must be the only one in the industry who missed it. You can see attempts to mimic the code in virtually all of the “majors” today (especially jQuery’s latest attempt(s) at competence.) If you missed the original Web app, you’ve been out to lunch for almost two years.

“Not seeing any of that here nor in the linked context.”

See above. You’ll have to do your own research. You can find lots of similar sentiments posted on *this* site. It’s the standard knee-jerk (emphasis on jerk) reaction. Seriously, where *have* you been?

“Delusions of grandeur? No one is defending their libraries because no one takes you seriously.”

Once again, many of them ventured to CLJ to defend their scripts. At least one link has been posted here that leads to Resig’s flailings. Search CLJ’s archives for lots more. It only made them look sillier and they seemingly learned very little from the experience.

“Really? Say what you want about the whole jQuery-extension nightmare, but by and large the web today is leaps and bounds more reliable—in terms of functionality, stability, cross-browser support, and a trend toward accessibility and good practices—than it was before Prototype and jQuery were created. There is a lot that needs improvement, but it’s just flatly wrong to say that the web is worse for it; it’s just not as much of a walled garden as it used to be.”

Nope, as of two years ago, they were all using UA-based browser sniffing, which was known to be unusable as early as 1998. Scripts like jQuery have moved on to the next step in the learning curve, which is sniffing by object inference. Perhaps you should read a bit before making wild stabs in the dark.

“From what I can tell, the response is that no one’s going to take some guy’s word for it about how bad a successful library is.”

Some guy?! Search the CLJ archive for jQuery and reserve a few days in your schedule to review the various reviews. And no need to take anyone’s word for any of this as there are plenty of clear examples. The failings of these scripts (not to mention the fallacies in the accompanying books) are easily demonstrable. Take some time and do some research. What could it hurt?

“Who’s stealing whose code now?”

That makes no sense in context. What are you trying to say?

“Which companies have been ripped off?”

Anybody who has paid for a public Website and gotten jQuery (or the like) on the side has been ripped off (and so have their users.) This is true whether they know it or not (and they don’t in most cases as they leave such decisions to the “experts”).

“The language has a much better reputation now than anytime in the past. It’s now considered a platform for serious application development. That’s since Prototype and jQuery.”

The rise of JS happened in *spite* of such follies. One thing is certain, you can’t build a “serious application” with something like jQuery. The only people saying differently are either hopelessly deluded or selling “serious jQuery applications.”

Well, it took a lot of harsh abrasives to put a dent in this mess. Not done yet, of course…

And you ask me not to feed the troll? What I said to sixtyseconds earlier is still relevant: Look. This is the Internet. People are going to be acerbic. Get over it and pick out what they mean to say. In other words, be the bigger person. You’ll relieve needless stress, you’ll learn more, and you’ll eventually crowd them out by being able to relay what they’re saying without the bile.

You’re not doing yourself or anyone else any favors by being defensive.

“What does that mean? Most of the fishy handles *are* mouthpieces for one project or another. That’s why they hide their identities.”

9_9 You’re not entitled to know people’s identities regardless of the reason they’re posting. I’m not “hiding” anything from you by using a handle.

“Nothing, except my complete non-interest in researching handles.”

Right after you got done explaining the reason you don’t take handles seriously is because you can research “real” names?

“I don’t have to research real names as I know who is who in this business.”

Then you should know their handles too. See how silly this is?

“Not interested.”

Good.

“Now I see the misconception. I’m not really talking to you at all.”

I didn’t say you were. In fact, I pretty much said you weren’t, and ought to be. If your concern is that “frauds” are “defrauding” the “public”, and you believe you have some unique or valuable insight into this “fraud”, don’t you have the responsibility to educate the “public”? Isn’t part of that responsibility not making extra sure you’ll be dismissed because you can’t be bothered to treat other people with respect?

“They are definitely listening as they keep appropriating my code and ideas.”

[citation needed]

“Notice not one of them is in here defending their libraries. They tried in the past and it always backfired.”

Delusions of grandeur? No one is defending their libraries because no one takes you seriously. Is anyone besides me even bothering to take anything you say at face value? I’m doing it because I think you have a point worth making, and I wish you’d make it instead of insulting people and making asinine allusions about the greatness about your Internet member.

“It’s ironic. When I first started pointing out the futility of scripts like Prototype and jQuery, the typical naive response was “where’s your cool library?” As if writing and giving away a general-purpose library was a prerequisite to judge code quality.”

From what I can tell, the response is that no one’s going to take some guy’s word for it about how bad a successful library is. They’re asking for some credibility to the claim—whether that credibility is generated by a coherent critique, or by reputation (the latter of which, in my opinion, would be giving you or anyone else *too much credit*).

“One of my main points was (and is) that GP JS libraries are a bad idea (deploying JS on the Web is nothing like distributing desktop software, JS is not assembler, jQuery is not C++, etc.)

Eventually, I posted one.”

So you’re a hypocrite?

“You can believe it was light years ahead of any of the “majors.””

Forgive me if I’m not inclined to just take your word for it. How’s about we see it?

“Then it was “aw, you are just jealous coz nobody is using your library!””

Not seeing any of that here nor in the linked context.

“So you’ve got these guys who clearly can’t think straight, downloading “plug-ins” to stack on top of scripts like jQuery, which are in a constant state of flux. It’s one of the reasons that the Web is such a mess and that people think of cross-browser scripting as impossible.”

Really? Say what you want about the whole jQuery-extension nightmare, but by and large the web today is leaps and bounds more reliable—in terms of functionality, stability, cross-browser support, and a trend toward accessibility and good practices—than it was before Prototype and jQuery were created. There is a lot that needs improvement, but it’s just flatly wrong to say that the web is worse for it; it’s just not as much of a walled garden as it used to be.

“I really don’t care if such people like me or not. I’m tired of tripping over their lousy scripts at every turn on the Web.”

Who’s stealing whose code now?

“I don’t like the idea of them ripping off companies”

Which companies have been ripped off?

“and ruining the reputation of the language either.”

The language has a much better reputation now than anytime in the past. It’s now considered a platform for serious application development. That’s since Prototype and jQuery.

will you use the HTML5 or the Safari DnD API?
They’re pretty close to each otehr but I think the Safari DnD API is quite complete and mature and is, as far as I know, the only complete and safe one.

Safety is a key: it has killed all MSIE attempts at providing a stable API because security holes got fixed too often… and among the safety traps, the MSIE folks suggested me quite many traps when going out from web to local: since your content is local it could start execute quite an amount of things when, e.g., being edited within an editor that accepts WMF or even HTML.

Last I heard of firefox’s developer previews, going from local content (I’m more interested to contents such as fragments or images than files) was impossible.

paul

There is no denying that David Mark’s tone is often abrasive but dismissing him as a moron because he has criticised your work is childish

It surely is, but you know I felt so good after that, believe me, you wouldn’t be happy if someone treated you as a Javascript illiterate, don’t you?

There is no denying that David Mark’s tone is often abrasive but dismissing him as a moron because he has criticised your work is childish. You would be better off swallowing your pride and reading through some of the comp.lang.javascript threads linked here.

Wake up, sleepy. Your library is a joke and years too late (see the BBC’s entry as well.) I don’t care if that hurts your feelings. I have to consider the general public.

Please don’t write any more libraries until you learn basic browser scripting. That’s the same thing I asked of Resig, so I’m not singling you out or anything.

And get a real name. Nobody is going to listen to a fish.

Your latest comment was such a great one, I especially liked that part.

Did your parents never teach you that you’ll get more flies with honey?

I don’t think his parents ever teach him what is politeness and respect, and to finish
please do not feed the troll anymore, seriously this guy is just a moron.

“So do handles. Many of us don’t intend to become “famous” programmers and don’t act as the mouthpiece for some project or another, and so choose to remain anonymous on the Internet.”

What does that mean? Most of the fishy handles *are* mouthpieces for one project or another. That’s why they hide their identities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

“That said, nothing is preventing you from researching the handles of people you interact with the same way you research the “real” names they claim to have.”

Nothing, except my complete non-interest in researching handles. I don’t have to research real names as I know who is who in this business.

“If you really feel you need to know more about me before you consider my opinions, lmgtfy.”

Not interested.

“Seriously, you come across as a self-important asshole. Talking down to people, as you’ve done here and in linked areas of the Internet, is off-putting and detracts from whatever point you’re trying to make. Did your parents never teach you that you’ll get more flies with honey?”

Now I see the misconception. I’m not really talking to you at all. This is a public forum. The people who should take notice are those paying for incompetent efforts. I’m also talking to the frauds churning out these libraries. They are definitely listening as they keep appropriating my code and ideas. Notice not one of them is in here defending their libraries. They tried in the past and it always backfired.

It’s ironic. When I first started pointing out the futility of scripts like Prototype and jQuery, the typical naive response was “where’s your cool library?” As if writing and giving away a general-purpose library was a prerequisite to judge code quality. One of my main points was (and is) that GP JS libraries are a bad idea (deploying JS on the Web is nothing like distributing desktop software, JS is not assembler, jQuery is not C++, etc.)

Eventually, I posted one. You can believe it was light years ahead of any of the “majors.” In fact, many have copied various bits of it. Then it was “aw, you are just jealous coz nobody is using your library!” That’s the loopy mindset and it is pretty out of place in this discipline.

So you’ve got these guys who clearly can’t think straight, downloading “plug-ins” to stack on top of scripts like jQuery, which are in a constant state of flux. It’s one of the reasons that the Web is such a mess and that people think of cross-browser scripting as impossible. I really don’t care if such people like me or not. I’m tired of tripping over their lousy scripts at every turn on the Web. I don’t like the idea of them ripping off companies and ruining the reputation of the language either.

“I’m late to the party, but I do have one question for you David. Are you opposed to libraries in general, or just those you feel are written poorly?”

I am opposed to *general purpose* JS libraries, particularly those written poorly (which describes virtually all of them.)

“While I write a lot of javascript/css/html mostly within my own framework, I do utilize some things from YUI for events, for example. Seems silly to rewrite that stuff when others have put a lot of time making sure that the hairiest cross-browser problem areas covered.”

YUI’s event module is a joke (uses browser sniffing in 2009 for one.) Do not use it under any circumstances.

“Maintaining cross-browser compatibility for common base functionality in a shared library by several experts seems like a good idea to me. The bulk of your argument seems to be on whether or not these people are experts, but I’m curious if you oppose the idea in general.”

Virtually none of the “major libraries” are cross-browser (and fewer still are written by people who can genuinely be considered experts.)

“It’s not a hangup. [goes on to explain the hangup]”

Alright, sure, whatever.

“Real names have reputations that precede them.”

So do handles. Many of us don’t intend to become “famous” programmers and don’t act as the mouthpiece for some project or another, and so choose to remain anonymous on the Internet. That said, nothing is preventing you from researching the handles of people you interact with the same way you research the “real” names they claim to have. If you really feel you need to know more about me before you consider my opinions, lmgtfy.

That said, you’re basically saying that your ability to discuss depends upon your ability to engage in a variety of logical fallacies relating to the person you’re discussing with—rather than the merits of their arguments. If for whatever reason “where they are on the learning curve” (9_9) is relevant, you can determine that from context. But the likelihood is that it’s not relevant.

Seriously, you come across as a self-important asshole. Talking down to people, as you’ve done here and in linked areas of the Internet, is off-putting and detracts from whatever point you’re trying to make. Did your parents never teach you that you’ll get more flies with honey?

I say this because I think you *do* have a point to make—one that could not only improve the work life of those who rely on the libraries in question, but also could improve those libraries and thereby have an even greater impact on those who rely on them. But your delivery is almost guaranteed to get your point exactly nowhere.

When you come stumbling in and start calling people amateurs and not explaining why you have a problem with what they’re doing, the likelihood is that most of them aren’t going to inquire further.

Just something to think about.