JulioCapote - Latest Comments in Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

KyleA — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 03:39:42 -0000

I don't think you've ever used jQuery.

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Alex Boisselle — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:34:37 -0000

LOL.

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Alex Boisselle — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:26:43 -0000

"While I haven't written any jQuery plugins", write 2 of the same plugins with each language. Mootools will perform better, LOOK BETTER and people will be able to extend hack on or whatever much easier.

Why abstract a language. It's Javascript, everyone starts (at least should, if didn't then shouldn't be part of the argument) with Javascript, before touching other frameworks so whats the point of throwing it away to learn a new one. It's the same thing as bloody Dreamweaver's "Design" view.

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

[rb] — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 22:23:15 -0000

oh sorry that was mean't to be a general reply not aimed at Alan - lolz

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

[rb] — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 22:21:40 -0000

Personally I cant stand jQuery because everything runs through its wanky magic namespace rather than following normal javascript patterns. MooTools first checks if a browser is missing support which is suposed to be in javascript that certain browsers missed and implements them so you use them as you would in browsers that already have the support, if a browser has the feature it leaves it alone. jQuery also adds suport for such things but you have to use one of the functions in the wanky namespace rather than simply accessing a method of the native (string etc.). Dont get me wrong John Resig is a great programmer but I find having a background in JavaScript prior to the rise of frameworks I find using a framework that forces you to unlearn javascript and learn a new set of functions which you can simply add to the natives (with or without MooTools) is painful. MooTools has a more natural feel, sure there are methods that aren't in javascript by default, thats what a framework is for but it does it in a more JavaScript way. MooTools also has a stronger standards based approach, with jQuery you can of course use standards code etc but it generally encorages things like: link where as the general MooTools pattern is for elements that only have functionality via javascript create and inject via js dont have useless crap in your markup.

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Ima Guest — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:59:40 -0000

I've used Prototype, MooTools, jQuery, and probably a couple others I've forgotten about. jQuery is the only framework I recommend to other people - especially web developers wanting to write Javascript. I'm not a developer on the jQuery team, but I want to run through what you've said:

1) Class support - I've given up on hoping for a reasonable class solution with Javascript. I've seen classes before in Javascript and they are nothing like what I'm familiar with. I write both C++ and PHP class code. Javascript has a pretty lousy idea of what classes should be. I personally prefer wrapping up my logic into global functions. A server is where heavy processing should take place anyway. I should probably point out this is coming from approximately 14 years of web development expertise.

2) "It smells, feels and tastes like regular Javascript" - I hate Javascript! jQuery's take on it is a breath of fresh air and most likely helped to inspire the committee creating CSS3 to finally have reasonable selectors. Javascript is a horrible, horrible, horrible language. Netscape's policies on Javascript back in the early days left us with the current cross-browser mess that various Standards bodies are trying to rectify.

3) "Faster" (false) - The jQuery teams is always aiming to improve jQuery's performance. 1.4 made huge leaps in certain areas. I'm sure MooTools continues to make strides too. One great rule of thumb to live by is to never say "X is faster than Y" unless you are well-prepared not only to prove that X is indeed faster than Y with benchmarks but also prepared for the backlash of everyone who is a fan of Y (regardless of outcome).

4) Here is the only point I agree with you on. jQuery typically has very laggy UI operations, so things like easing are a bit jerky. Most users overlook this. Therefore, a non-issue except to the developer. Users really don't care.

5) I don't know what part of the jQuery documentation you missed, but you can easily create DOM elements. I typically abuse the $(...).html() method to accomplish this. It works quite well. $('#somediv').html('JulioCapote'); Done.

6) Modular - No need. Use the Google CDN if you are concerned about a paltry 56KB. Most users will already have it cached. 'Nuff Said.

7) Documentation - Everything needs better documentation. But with 1.4, the jQuery team added a comments system. If you find some section of jQuery documentation lacking, write a comment. Wait a few days and the documentation will get fixed.

8) "Easier to hack on and extend" - While I haven't written any jQuery plugins either, I have seen enough source code to know I could make one easily. As I said earlier, I prefer writing global functions. I COULD make those into a plugin, but it just seems nicer to have regular functions in some cases.

9) Prototype vs. Namespace. I guess this boils down to personal preference of how you like your code to read. I do occasionally find some lengthy jQuery code to be rather unreadable no matter how much whitespace I stick into the code.

10) "I'm just trying to write some Javascript here." Javascript is a terrible language. Anything that abstracts away from it can only make it more usable. As you pointed out, jQuery abstracts Javascript quite successfully.

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Guest — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:16:18 -0000

Hello,

I like the list you came up with. Please note that I think the scope of our project is much bigger, you cannot just compare jQuery and MooTools like that. MooTools just happens to have functionality that is similar to that of jQuery's (Element, Fx, Request) because it is generally needed when programming on the clientside.

In the near future we will try to make everything even better, just stay tuned for the changes. Btw. it is the first time ever someone said that our documentation is better. Maybe you just think like we do, care to get involved? ;)

Bye

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Dan — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:45:07 -0000

Adobe already has Spry, so chances are slim of them using jQuery.

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Guest — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 02:32:20 -0000

Well all the dicussion here is cool..but would like to say something.. "Advanced doesn't means the best", there are websites without any JS included runs as good as with some JS frameworks. Many a times i switch off JS in my browser which completely distorts the page. Do we give a thought what if a user blocks the JS, will the website will run with a lot of JS included for what not effects, Dont you all thinnk we are so much tend to use JS as something different which is not always required. Can we found a way where in all this is a part of plain HTML itself..Sounds little negative?

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

kcmr — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:20:21 -0000

I agree.

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Allan — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:35:20 -0000

I am just a web designer... but I fond jQuery easy to understand that other javascript library

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Webdesign Meppel — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 07:30:06 -0000

First of all, I like them both. I once started with Mootools and build a site with it using the scrolling function (http://www.hapjestheater.nl).
Some time later I got known to jQuery and now I can say it fits my needs better. I've never been very good with javascript and jQuery seems to be more understandable to me.

But as I said, the're both great frameworks!

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

existdissolve — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:53:42 -0000

I agree with the first comment. The whole "my javascript framework is better than yours" is juvenile--the best javascript framework, scripting language, graphic editing program, etc. is the one that helps you best create awesome projects for your clients. Period.

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Tom Occhino — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 02:33:52 -0000

I posted this previously but thought it couldn't hurt to reiterate. :)

I think it's important for everyone to remember, the JavaScript libraries and frameworks aren't competing... We aren't at war with each other, we are all collectively at war against browser inconsistencies, and limitations of the JavaScript language itself.

Since all the framework authors understand this, I think it's important for us to start conveying to our users how important it is for them to understand it as well.

That being said, choose the framework you think is best for the job, and squeeze all the functionality you can out of it ;)

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Rey Bango — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:29:02 -0000

@Julio: Thanks for your feedback. We totally respect your decision but I will leave you with this. The simple fact that John reached out to you for your feedback is indicative of how much we (the jQuery team) care about the community of developers. That, in itself, sets us apart from most projects and is a HUGE reason why people love jQuery.

Your choice of framework is a very personal decision and we just want to let you know that we appreciate you using jQuery and we're here to help if you need us.

Rey Bango
jQuery Team

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Gavin Terrill — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:31:51 -0000

It's a pity you can't use both...

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Graham Jenson — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:13:01 -0000

Oh I see, you can build your own moo.js from a greater set of functionality. That makes more sense, great little idea. More research is needed I think.

Graham

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Graham Jenson — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:08:11 -0000

I have used jQuery a little, and interested now to at least try mooTools(personally I hate JavaScript with a passion so 2 is actually a turn off)
I just have one problem with this post however...
#6 Modular
By definition of the title it implies that it is in modules, but you say that it is all in one class, this is then a misnomer. I agree having all the functionality in a single class has its pros and cons vs many classes, BUT, that is not modularity, it is more like singleton.
If mooTools can be extended then that would be the reason for arguing for modularity, but not the single file thing.

Graham

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Jonathan Fenocchi — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:11:39 -0000

You're right. jQuery doesn't look a thing like JavaScript. Thank heavens! JavaScript about three or four years ago was perhaps the ugliest code ever, excluding perhaps VB.

I write all of my JavaScript as if it were a jQuery or Greasemonkey script nowadays, even if I'm not using a library. Unobtrusive, graceful degradation, accessibility, speed, and the benefit of beautiful, structured code. I have used probably every JavaScript library at some point. Prototype was my favorite when it came out, then MooTools, and now it's jQuery. I'll never go back. =)

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Will — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:01:21 -0000

I used to use Mootools however I dropped it after bugs with select box .selectedIndex in Safari. I hacked some of the mootools source to fix it, but I don't want to run a customized version on a production server due to upgrade concerns. On a side note, it took mootools over a year to go from 1.11 to 1.2.

I've had way better luck with jQuery. I haven't run into any show-stopping bugs (actually, none at all), and even if I did the releases are much more frequent .

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Tim — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:45:46 -0000

Ya, MooTools is a nice set of tools. But, I prefer prototype.js.

My reasoning:
It has a number of methods that are not available with MooTools.
It has better documentation (really easy to find on their api page).

Though, MooTools has some features that prototype doesn't. Like the getScrollSize() method, and all of the snazzy effects (which are nice). For those effects you could go with script.aculo.us, but the MooTools effects do seem better (+ smoother).

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

issackelly — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:48:04 -0000

Trackback: http://www.issackelly.com/B...
.."Not that it doesn't stand up on its own right, but I have to throw my $0.02 in"

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

issackelly — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:33:04 -0000

I'm going to do a point by point here.

1) "Eventually you'll want real classes to structure your UI logic". While This is what you want, the better I get at jQuery the more I use chaining. I also lean toward functional programming and not OO programming, so...yeah. I'm just saying that this isn't necessarily a global drawback as much as a design choice.
2) Ok, I buy that, but again, I see it as a preference thing, because before jQuery, to me 'regular javascript' just wasn't that good
3) Yeah.. you figured this one out (and Webkit Nightly does EVERYTHING faster, it's great...I can't wait for the mainstream version of that)
4) I don't do animations much.. but in my experience jQuery's have been...sufficient. Moo Tools animations do look pretty good
5) $("done");
6) You can do this from SVN...but at 12kbs I think it's really unnecessary
7) I've never checked out the mootools documentation, My experience with jQuery doc has been very good, and my experience with the #jquery on irc.freenode.net has been very good as well
8) I haven't done anything outside of 'basic usage' with mootools, but jquery isn't an 'unintelligible mess' by any means.
9) Yeah, this is just preference, but unobtrusive is worth it, especially if you have to have two versions of the same library on a page.
10) I for one welcome our new namespaced overlords.

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

dfguy — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:17:58 -0000

you're wasting you time. jQuery is now backed by Microsoft and Nokia. Pretty soon it will become that defacto standard in javascript and ajax development. I can forsee that Adobe will adopt it into CF soon. All other javascript frameworks will soon fade into the void.

Re: Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)

Nathan L Smith — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:01:41 -0000

I don't see the point in arguing over which framework is "better". There's room for all of them and they each have different goals and approaches. Sure some comparison is fine but this seems like trying to point out where jQuery is "wrong" where it's just different then Mootools.

I like them both, but I like Prototype.js better, so there.