Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #27624 > unrolled thread

Foundation > jQuery ?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Foundation > jQuery ? amado.alves@gmail.com - 2015-05-14 07:59 -0700
    Re: Foundation > jQuery ? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-14 17:47 +0200
      Re: Foundation > jQuery ? amado.alves@gmail.com - 2015-05-14 09:48 -0700
        Re: Foundation > jQuery ? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-05-14 18:22 +0100
          Re: Foundation > jQuery ? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-14 21:13 +0200
        Re: Foundation > jQuery ? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-14 21:12 +0200
        Re: Foundation > jQuery ? "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2015-05-14 16:16 -0700
          Re: Foundation > jQuery ? Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-15 14:31 +1000
            Re: Foundation > jQuery ? "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-15 09:15 +0200
            Re: Foundation > jQuery ? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-05-15 09:03 +0100
          Re: Foundation > jQuery ? amado.alves@gmail.com - 2015-05-15 02:37 -0700
            Re: Foundation > jQuery ? Joao Rodrigues <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2015-05-15 07:10 -0300
            Re: Foundation > jQuery ? James Lewis <lewisje@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 21:36 -0700

#27624 — Foundation > jQuery ?

The jQuery website (https://jquery.com/) is given as an example of a website built with... Foundation! (http://foundation.zurb.com/learn/website-examples.html) Is that true? Aren't Foundation and jQuery competitors? Thanks.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#27626

amado.alves@gmail.com wrote on 14 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:

> The jQuery website (https://jquery.com/) is given as an example of a
> website built with... Foundation!
> (http://foundation.zurb.com/learn/website-examples.html) Is that true?
> Aren't Foundation and jQuery competitors? Thanks. 

No thanks.

This NG is about Javascript, 
not about the struggles between rivalling bad libraries.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27627

Which *good* library would you recommend then? Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27629

In article <f0c5179c-b74e-4d36-9b88-9fe3131dfb70@googlegroups.com>,
<amado.alves@gmail.com> wrote:

>Which *good* library would you recommend then? Thanks.

The best one is none at all. Create your own useful set of functions as
you go along.

-- 
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where 
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27632

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote on 14 mei 2015 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> In article <f0c5179c-b74e-4d36-9b88-9fe3131dfb70@googlegroups.com>,
> <amado.alves@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Which *good* library would you recommend then? Thanks.
> 
> The best one is none at all. Create your own useful set of functions as
> you go along.

Hear hear!

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27631

amado.alves@gmail.com wrote on 14 mei 2015 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Which *good* library would you recommend then? Thanks.

To what and to whom are you responding?

This is usenet, not email. 

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27633

On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:48:13 AM UTC-5, amado...@gmail.com wrote:
> Which *good* library would you recommend then? Thanks.

I would suggest <http://vanilla-js.com/> as a start

From there start collecting/creating individual utility functions as the need arises.

Give it some time and thought and you will have a library (or more) that will solve the problems you are concerned with. 

The problem with general purpose libraries and frameworks is: (no surprise), they overgeneralize and never quite fit your problem domain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27634

On 15/05/2015 9:16 AM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:48:13 AM UTC-5, amado...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> Which *good* library would you recommend then? Thanks.
>
> I would suggest <http://vanilla-js.com/> as a start

:-)

A bummer if you go for a job interview and they want you to show/tell 
them what general purpose libraries and frameworks your familiar with 
and you reply "none because I've just been collecting/creating 
individual utility functions as the need arises". And they reply with 
"thanks for coming in, next."

Andrew Poulos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27635

Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote on 15 mei 2015 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> On 15/05/2015 9:16 AM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:48:13 AM UTC-5, amado...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> Which *good* library would you recommend then? Thanks.
>>
>> I would suggest <http://vanilla-js.com/> as a start
> 
> :-)
> 
> A bummer if you go for a job interview and they want you to show/tell 
> them what general purpose libraries and frameworks your familiar with 
> and you reply "none because I've just been collecting/creating 
> individual utility functions as the need arises". And they reply with 
> "thanks for coming in, next."

This would suggest that you only need a job, any job,
and that the employer has ample choice of good people.

If you have the luxury, 
better have them choose you on your quality and terms,
not only your self-esteem and your joy in life,
but your employer too will be better off.

============

In this NG, however, I would strongly suggest that Javascript newbees 
refrain from using libraries till they are proficient and confident enough 
in the language that they realy don't need a library anymore,
or in any case, don't need expert advice for choosing such library.

As an employer [which I am not], I would, if I had the luxury, take on one 
of the latter group, and would never hire a newbee professing intimate 
carnal knowledge with jquery. 

- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27636

In article <Rb2dnayF4fsh68jInZ2dnUVZ8hmdnZ2d@westnet.com.au>, Andrew
Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 15/05/2015 9:16 AM, Michael Haufe (TNO) wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 11:48:13 AM UTC-5, amado...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> Which *good* library would you recommend then? Thanks.
>>
>> I would suggest <http://vanilla-js.com/> as a start
>
>:-)
>
>A bummer if you go for a job interview and they want you to show/tell 
>them what general purpose libraries and frameworks your familiar with 
>and you reply "none because I've just been collecting/creating 
>individual utility functions as the need arises". And they reply with 
>"thanks for coming in, next."

And I would leave as fast as I could, saying "Fuck, that was a narrow
escape!" to myself as I left.

-- 
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. 
 In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
                                               - Paul Tomblin, ASR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27638

Thanks a lot guys, I'll check vanilla-js.

/*
FWIW I'm not a newby, but a seasoned programmer, I just wanted a library to help make a website, I kind of had selected Foundation over jQuery but then I found jQuery website listed as an example of Foundation and got confused, even thou this could support my choice of Foundation over jQuery.
*/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27639

On 15/05/15 06:37, amado.alves@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks a lot guys, I'll check vanilla-js.
>
> /* FWIW I'm not a newby, but a seasoned programmer, I just wanted a
> library to help make a website, I kind of had selected Foundation
> over jQuery but then I found jQuery website listed as an example of
> Foundation and got confused, even thou this could support my choice
> of Foundation over jQuery. */
>

AFAIK, Foundation is a framework for building responsive websites [1],
whereas JQuery is a JavaScript toolkit with thousands of code lines.

Therefore, JQuery is complementary to Foundation.

Also, there are alternatives to Foundation:
<http://speckyboy.com/2012/11/05/10-lightweight-minimal-responsive-grid-frameworks/>

[1] I'm using the term coined by Ethan Marcotte in his excellent book 
'Responsive Web Design':
<http://abookapart.com/products/responsive-web-design>

-- 
Joao Rodrigues

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27999

On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 5:37:25 AM UTC-4, amado...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks a lot guys, I'll check vanilla-js.
> 
> /*
> FWIW I'm not a newby, but a seasoned programmer, I just wanted a library to help make a website, I kind of had selected Foundation over jQuery but then I found jQuery website listed as an example of Foundation and got confused, even thou this could support my choice of Foundation over jQuery.
> */

I recommend polyfills.io for cross-browser work, because many of the new methods in ES5 and ES6 are convenient to use, and they take the guesswork out of re-implementing them for older browsers (as long as you don't count on that second argument to Object.create or anything like that).

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web