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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #15986 > unrolled thread

jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties

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

Contents

  jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-18 22:57 -0700
    Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 03:21 -0700
      Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 12:47 -0700
    Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-09-19 15:43 +0100
      Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties "S.T." <anon@anon.com> - 2012-09-19 08:33 -0700
        Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 11:32 -0700
          Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 12:23 -0700
      Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 11:20 -0700
    Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties Hans-Georg Michna <hans-georgNoEmailPlease@michna.com> - 2012-09-19 17:34 +0200
      Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 11:44 -0700
        Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 12:16 -0700
    Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 12:51 -0700
    Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties "S.T." <anon@anon.com> - 2012-09-19 14:26 -0700
      Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 14:59 -0700
        Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 15:13 -0700
        Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 15:28 -0700
        Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties "S.T." <anon@anon.com> - 2012-09-19 15:30 -0700
          Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 16:01 -0700
            Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties "S.T." <anon@anon.com> - 2012-09-19 17:09 -0700
              Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 17:23 -0700
              Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 22:17 -0700
                Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties "S.T." <anon@anon.com> - 2012-09-20 10:41 -0700
                  Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-20 11:00 -0700
                  Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-09-21 09:19 +0100
                    Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-21 06:29 -0700
                      Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties Adam Silver <adambsilver@gmail.com> - 2012-09-21 07:08 -0700
              Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-20 15:47 +1000
                Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 23:16 -0700
              Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-09-20 10:20 -0700
          Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 16:03 -0700
    Re: jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-09-19 20:13 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#15986 — jQuery still (very) confused about attributes and properties

Here they "grow" again:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clarification

"Using 1.7.2 and 1.8pre, whether you call .prop() or attr(), jQuery
will internally always actually use .prop for:

async, autofocus, autoplay, checked, controls, defer, disabled,
hidden, loop,
multiple, open, readonly, required, scoped, selected"

This is what's known as an "active" project. Basically, they fiddle
around with the logic behind the "simple" API forever. You never know
what to expect from one version to the next. This is largely caused by
flailing around trying to make the results match their confused
expectations. I call it a "never finished" project.

Though I didn't see this specific misstep coming, I knew from reading
the recently mentioned "attr vs. prop" discussion (for lack of a
better word) on StackOverflow (for lack of a better site) that they
were confused about how to handle boolean properties/attributes. I
just had no idea *how* confused. Here they've lumped all booleans (or
at least the ones they've heard of) into a single group for special
treatment (apparently starting with version 1.7.2).

The above is a partial list of attributes (left out ismap for one)
that are reflected as boolean properties. Two of them should stand out
as fundamentally different from the rest. The "checked" and "selected"
attributes are reflected by DOM properties with the "default" prefix
(e.g. "defaultChecked"). The reason for this is simple: user actions
may change the "checked" and "selected" properties and the DOM must
keep track of the default values of these attributes (e.g. to reset
forms). This is all spelled out very clearly in the DOM
specifications, which predate jQuery by several years (so much for
moving forward).

So, once again, in trying to dumb down interfaces that they themselves
don't understand, they've just made things more complicated for their
users. If they'd have bothered to *read* this example (as opposed to
just copying it into their repository for testing), they'd have
understood the basic concept of "attr" vs. "prop":

http://www.cinsoft.net/attributes.html

To be specific, they've created collisions where the DOM (and my
example) specifically avoided them.

Right:

$(el).prop('checked') == el.checked;
$(el).attr('checked') == el.defaultChecked;

Wrong:

$(el).prop('checked') == el.checked;
$(el).attr('checked') == el.checked;

Yes, the wrong version may indeed get the correct results in some
cases, which further confuses the issue. Obviously, if el.checked ==
el.defaultChecked, it doesn't matter which method is used (even a
broken clock is right twice per day).

The general attitude of jQuery users since the infamous attr/prop
split has been: why do we need two methods? The above comparison
should answer that question. But now, in their infinite wisdom, the
jQuery authors have now bypassed the split, but only for boolean
properties/attributes. This, of course, makes no sense at all.

A good example of when this is important is the case of a script that
needs to determine if the checked state of a checkbox has changed (by
the user of programmatically). In other words, is the control "dirty"?
This comes up all the time, for example, if one of the controls in a
form (or fieldset) has changed, an application may want to warn the
user before they navigate to another location and lose their changes.

That's the "getter" end of it. As for the "setter", this should set
the "checked" property to true:

$(el).prop('checked', true);

...And this should set the "defaultChecked" property to true:

$(el).attr('checked', 'checked');

...And this should set the "defaultChecked" property to false:

$(el).removeAttr('checked');

Unfortunately, that last one has never worked consistently, even
within their short list of "supported" browsers. More on that later.

The jQuery user need have no knowledge of the "defaultChecked"
property. That's the complication that should be abstracted away (as
opposed to shaved off).

The example use case for the "setter" is also common (and related to
the "getter" example). If a form is submitted via XHR and the request
succeeds, you would typically do this to update a checkbox to reflect
the newly updated data on the server:

el.defaultChecked = el.checked;

...Or in jQuery terms:

if ($(el).prop('checked')) {
  $(el).attr('checked', 'checked');
} else {
  // Note this will fail by throwing an exception in at least some
combinations of jQuery and IE versions.
  // Will cause an infinite loop in others. :(
  $(el).removeAttr('checked');
}

...But as of 1.7.2, the first branch will evaluate to a very costly
(in more ways than one) no-op. In other words, prior to 1.7.2, that
line would do something useful, but thereafter will do *nothing*
(other than waste time). As noted in the comments, nobody really knows
what the second branch will do (lot of variables to consider). Well,
this will hold true until they realize their latest goof and revert
it.

Who keeps track of all of these changes? As noted here, it's scary to
think what this will do to all of the plug-ins in the "jQuery
universe":

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5874652/prop-vs-attr/5876747

...Not to mention all of the existing sites and applications. Even the
famously naive jQuery enthusiasts smell a rat here. It's really hard
to miss, even without a solid frame of reference.

But wait, there's more. The "value" property is also subject to change
(by user or script), yet it has been left off the above convergence
list, likely due to the fact that it is not a boolean. Have a headache
yet? :)

$(el).prop('value') == el.value;
$(el).attr('value') != el.value;

Against all odds, it gets even worse (get out the aspirin). All of the
above jQuery examples are based on the rules introduced in 1.6, which
were clearly (loosely) based on the "attr" and "prop" functions found
in the above-mentioned attributes primer. Unfortunately for everybody
that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed them
here (literally the next day IIRC).

If only they would have asked, but then the CLJ "ban" was in effect.
These bumblers constantly screw up even the simplest DOM operations,
all the while warning their users to avoid the "trolls" in CLJ (who
most certainly have the answers the jQuery *authors* are desperately
seeking themselves). How stupid and self-defeating can you get? I
suppose that, years from now, when they finally figure this stuff out,
they won't have to share credit with those awful "trolls" that have
caused them so much grief over the years. :)

Obviously, they should have never changed the legacy "attr" method to
match mine. The very idea was lunacy (as I pointed out in my review).
The act of copying my code into their repository for testing was a
harbinger. Unfortunately, not known for reading comprehension, they
decided *not* to follow my advice for a fix that would preserve
backward compatibility with previous jQuery versions, while actually
simplifying this issue going forward. No, they reverted "attr" back to
its original confused logic (mixes up properties and attributes in a
maddening combinations that have proven unreliable, even in their
"supported" browsers) and left "prop" alone. This left them with a
broken "attr", the long-since busted "removeAttr" and a "prop" that
(presumably) works as intended. Now I know you have a headache, unless
you took my advice five years ago and avoided this miserable project
like the plague. ;)

The ongoing jQuery effort is clearly the most futile attempt to
simplify DOM manipulation since... well, it's really in a class by
itself in this dubious category. Not unexpected at all as to simplify
DOM manipulation, the authors would first need to understand the
basics of DOM manipulation, as well as common use cases. Reminds me of
the old Monty Python sketch about the botched English-Hungarian
phrasebook.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6D1YI-41ao&feature=player_detailpage

I will not use thees library. It ees botched. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6D1YI-41ao&feature=player_detailpage#t=240s

So how on earth is this brand name so popular? The answer is simple.
The primary users of the jQuery API are plug-in and widget authors.
They are just jumping on a brand name bandwagon, so they don't care if
the underlying script is a piece of junk. They put up with the endless
mix-ups because they know that Web developers will download their
widgets if they say "jQuery" on them. The widget developers abdicate
responsibility for the DOM to jQuery (come hell or high water) and the
Web developers abdicate responsibility for jQuery to the widget
developers. It's a two-tiered system of abdication; when things go
wrong it is easy enough to blame the next guy. The buck stops with
Resig, but relentless marketing has convinced virtually everybody
outside of this newsgroup that he's on the ball, so the blame is
passed on to the evil browsers and their indecipherable DOM
implementations. It was amusing five years ago (when IE 6/7 reigned),
but absolutely perverse today as it has never been easier to write
cross-browser code (degrading in the IE legacy versions as needed).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-browser

The final (I hope) punchline is coming in early 2013 when they drop
all support for IE 8- (not a misprint, they really are lumping IE 8 in
with the previous versions) from the main branch. At that point, the
entire project becomes superfluous. Hopefully it will vanish quickly,
but realistically it will take years to scrape this mess off the Web
(see Prototype).

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#15992

On Sep 19, 1:57 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here they "grow" again:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clari...
>
> "Using 1.7.2 and 1.8pre, whether you call .prop() or attr(), jQuery
> will internally always actually use .prop for:
>
> async, autofocus, autoplay, checked, controls, defer, disabled,
> hidden, loop,
> multiple, open, readonly, required, scoped, selected"
>
> This is what's known as an "active" project. Basically, they fiddle
> around with the logic behind the "simple" API forever. You never know
> what to expect from one version to the next. This is largely caused by
> flailing around trying to make the results match their confused
> expectations. I call it a "never finished" project.
>
> Though I didn't see this specific misstep coming, I knew from reading
> the recently mentioned "attr vs. prop" discussion (for lack of a
> better word) on StackOverflow (for lack of a better site) that they
> were confused about how to handle boolean properties/attributes. I
> just had no idea *how* confused. Here they've lumped all booleans (or
> at least the ones they've heard of) into a single group for special
> treatment (apparently starting with version 1.7.2).
>
> The above is a partial list of attributes (left out ismap for one)
> that are reflected as boolean properties. Two of them should stand out
> as fundamentally different from the rest. The "checked" and "selected"
> attributes are reflected by DOM properties with the "default" prefix
> (e.g. "defaultChecked"). The reason for this is simple: user actions
> may change the "checked" and "selected" properties and the DOM must
> keep track of the default values of these attributes (e.g. to reset
> forms). This is all spelled out very clearly in the DOM
> specifications, which predate jQuery by several years (so much for
> moving forward).
>
> So, once again, in trying to dumb down interfaces that they themselves
> don't understand, they've just made things more complicated for their
> users. If they'd have bothered to *read* this example (as opposed to
> just copying it into their repository for testing), they'd have
> understood the basic concept of "attr" vs. "prop":
>
> http://www.cinsoft.net/attributes.html
>
> To be specific, they've created collisions where the DOM (and my
> example) specifically avoided them.
>
> Right:
>
> $(el).prop('checked') == el.checked;
> $(el).attr('checked') == el.defaultChecked;
>

A couple of clarifications. As mentioned, the jQuery examples are
based on their 1.6 hack job, but obviously just the "right" examples.
The "wrong" examples are based on their new take.

Regardless, the second example above is an oversimplification. Like
the primer they copied, their 1.6 "attr" returned only strings or
undefined. Actually, null in my examples; but I guess they wanted to
be (slightly) different.

$(el).attr('checked') == el.defaultChecked ? 'checked' : undefined;

Something like that. I suppose the historical record is irrelevant at
this point as they reverted back to the hybrid "attr" (which returns a
boolean value for "checked") within days of my review of 1.6. Then
again, given the widespread abuse of these scripts, there's probably
people somewhere in the world upgrading from 1.6 to 1.6.1 as I write
this. If only Resig hadn't placed this newsgroup on the "banned"
list. :)

It really amazes me that jQuery users are so eager to "upgrade" every
time they see a new version. Do they think these things are like movie
sequels? I suppose, in a way, they are. They repeat the same basic
plot with minor tweaks and certainly get worse over time. But
programming and watching movies are very different things (newbs take
note of that). Swapping out foundation-level scripts on websites
requires a bit more consideration than trading in movies at the
mall. ;)

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

#16012

On Sep 19, 6:21 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:57 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here they "grow" again:
>
> >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clari...
>
> > "Using 1.7.2 and 1.8pre, whether you call .prop() or attr(), jQuery
> > will internally always actually use .prop for:
>
> > async, autofocus, autoplay, checked, controls, defer, disabled,
> > hidden, loop,
> > multiple, open, readonly, required, scoped, selected"
>
> > This is what's known as an "active" project. Basically, they fiddle
> > around with the logic behind the "simple" API forever. You never know
> > what to expect from one version to the next. This is largely caused by
> > flailing around trying to make the results match their confused
> > expectations. I call it a "never finished" project.
>
> > Though I didn't see this specific misstep coming, I knew from reading
> > the recently mentioned "attr vs. prop" discussion (for lack of a
> > better word) on StackOverflow (for lack of a better site) that they
> > were confused about how to handle boolean properties/attributes. I
> > just had no idea *how* confused. Here they've lumped all booleans (or
> > at least the ones they've heard of) into a single group for special
> > treatment (apparently starting with version 1.7.2).
>
> > The above is a partial list of attributes (left out ismap for one)
> > that are reflected as boolean properties. Two of them should stand out
> > as fundamentally different from the rest. The "checked" and "selected"
> > attributes are reflected by DOM properties with the "default" prefix
> > (e.g. "defaultChecked"). The reason for this is simple: user actions
> > may change the "checked" and "selected" properties and the DOM must
> > keep track of the default values of these attributes (e.g. to reset
> > forms). This is all spelled out very clearly in the DOM
> > specifications, which predate jQuery by several years (so much for
> > moving forward).
>
> > So, once again, in trying to dumb down interfaces that they themselves
> > don't understand, they've just made things more complicated for their
> > users. If they'd have bothered to *read* this example (as opposed to
> > just copying it into their repository for testing), they'd have
> > understood the basic concept of "attr" vs. "prop":
>
> >http://www.cinsoft.net/attributes.html
>
> > To be specific, they've created collisions where the DOM (and my
> > example) specifically avoided them.
>
> > Right:
>
> > $(el).prop('checked') == el.checked;
> > $(el).attr('checked') == el.defaultChecked;
>
> A couple of clarifications. As mentioned, the jQuery examples are
> based on their 1.6 hack job, but obviously just the "right" examples.
> The "wrong" examples are based on their new take.
>
> Regardless, the second example above is an oversimplification. Like
> the primer they copied, their 1.6 "attr" returned only strings or
> undefined. Actually, null in my examples; but I guess they wanted to
> be (slightly) different.
>
> $(el).attr('checked') == el.defaultChecked ? 'checked' : undefined;
>
> Something like that. I suppose the historical record is irrelevant at
> this point as they reverted back to the hybrid "attr" (which returns a
> boolean value for "checked") within days of my review of 1.6. Then
> again, given the widespread abuse of these scripts, there's probably
> people somewhere in the world upgrading from 1.6 to 1.6.1 as I write
> this. If only Resig hadn't placed this newsgroup on the "banned"
> list. :)
>
> It really amazes me that jQuery users are so eager to "upgrade" every
> time they see a new version. Do they think these things are like movie
> sequels? I suppose, in a way, they are. They repeat the same basic
> plot with minor tweaks and certainly get worse over time. But
> programming and watching movies are very different things (newbs take
> note of that). Swapping out foundation-level scripts on websites
> requires a bit more consideration than trading in movies at the
> mall. ;)

Left off one other twist to this convoluted tale. The "attr" method is
supposed to work with both HTML and XML DOM's (XML from XHR results,
not XHTML of course). That's always been one of its biggest handicaps
as it led to code that must first distinguish between the two types of
DOM's (impossible to do reliably) and then process them in completely
different ways. This is partly to blame for the lack of maintenance on
that method as, despite being brief, it is virtually impossible to
follow (and what comments exist are as confusing as the code).

If you read through the "support" discussions regarding "attr" vs.
"prop", you'll find that nobody from the jQuery side mentioned this
issue at all. In short, they just keep saying "use prop" for "most"
cases. Obviously, "prop" won't work XML at all. It's almost as if they
don't know what their own code is designed (using that term loosely)
to do. (?)

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

#15997

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 at 22:57:15, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark 
wrote:

   <snip>
>The final (I hope) punchline is coming in early 2013 when they drop
>all support for IE 8- (not a misprint, they really are lumping IE 8 in
>with the previous versions) from the main branch. At that point, the
>entire project becomes superfluous. Hopefully it will vanish quickly,
>but realistically it will take years to scrape this mess off the Web
>(see Prototype).

Seriously, are they really thinking of stopping all Win XP users from 
buying on-line ? (IE9+ aren't available for XP).

   John
-- 
John Harris

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

#15999

On 9/19/2012 7:43 AM, John G Harris wrote:
> Seriously, are they really thinking of stopping all Win XP users from
> buying on-line ? (IE9+ aren't available for XP).

No, David's just desperate for attention.

The jQuery 2.* release (which hasn't seen an alpha yet) strips a bunch 
of IE-focused code and won't support < IE9, while the 1.* branch will 
continue development in parallel, with the same APIs as the 2.* branch, 
and continue IE6+ support. Developers decide which version fits their 
needs. It's not quite as controversial as David wants it to sound.

It's worth noting... "Earlier this week Google Apps announced that 
they’ll soon drop support for Internet Explorer 8, the most up-to-date 
version of Microsoft’s web browser available on XP. After November 15, 
anyone trying to access Gmail, Google Calendar, or Google Docs/Drive 
from IE8 will see a message recommending that they upgrade their browser."

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

#16005

On Sep 19, 11:33 am, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 7:43 AM, John G Harris wrote:
>
> > Seriously, are they really thinking of stopping all Win XP users from
> > buying on-line ? (IE9+ aren't available for XP).
>
> No, David's just desperate for attention.

Spoken like somebody who doesn't know me from Adam. I think "S.T." is
following me around again. :)

>
> The jQuery 2.* release (which hasn't seen an alpha yet) strips a bunch
> of IE-focused code and won't support < IE9, while the 1.* branch will
> continue development in parallel,

And, uh... LOL. Can't take it. What's wrong with *that* picture (hint:
re-read my OP). ;)

> with the same APIs as the 2.* branch,
> and continue IE6+ support.

That they have yet to get anywhere close to write. In over five years
of near constant development. :(

> Developers decide which version fits their
> needs.

LOL. One version falls apart in unpredictable ways in IE 8- (and
compatibility modes). The other is the SOS that... well, see my
reviews over the years.

> It's not quite as controversial as David wants it to sound.

What I "want" is neither here nor there.

http://blog.jquery.com/2012/06/28/jquery-core-version-1-9-and-beyond/

This one opens with:

"Please check out the followup post before jumping to the wrong
conclusion."

http://blog.jquery.com/2012/07/01/jquery-1-9-and-2-0-tldr-edition/

If you think that sounds defensive, read on. The jQuery community
(save for shills) is definitely upset about splitting the project in
two (as well they should be).

The whole idea is nuts; but, as predicted, the split was inevitable
(they had nowhere else to go). Two branches when they can't even keep
plug-ins in sync with one branch? The "jQuery Universe" is going to
get messier in 2013 and beyond, simply because jQuery is not a cross-
browser script (as has been noted numerous times over the years).

>
> It's worth noting... "Earlier this week Google Apps announced that
> they’ll soon drop support for Internet Explorer 8, the most up-to-date
> version of Microsoft’s web browser available on XP. After November 15,
> anyone trying to access Gmail, Google Calendar, or Google Docs/Drive
> from IE8 will see a message recommending that they upgrade their browser."

I did note that on Twitter (and had a good laugh). Have you forgotten
Google's long incompetent relationship with browser scripting? They
are certainly not a good concern to emulate. In other words, if Google
does it, you should think twice about whether it is a really good
idea. In this case, it shouldn't take much thought, unless you are
completely clueless about this stuff. (?)

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

#16010

On Sep 19, 2:32 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 11:33 am, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
>
> > On 9/19/2012 7:43 AM, John G Harris wrote:
>
> > > Seriously, are they really thinking of stopping all Win XP users from
> > > buying on-line ? (IE9+ aren't available for XP).
>
> > No, David's just desperate for attention.
>
> Spoken like somebody who doesn't know me from Adam. I think "S.T." is
> following me around again. :)
>
>
>
> > The jQuery 2.* release (which hasn't seen an alpha yet) strips a bunch
> > of IE-focused code and won't support < IE9, while the 1.* branch will
> > continue development in parallel,
>
> And, uh... LOL. Can't take it. What's wrong with *that* picture (hint:
> re-read my OP). ;)
>
> > with the same APIs as the 2.* branch,
> > and continue IE6+ support.
>
> That they have yet to get anywhere close to write. In over five years
> of near constant development. :(

Right, not write. Sorry, laughing too hard to pay attention.

Two branches, "continued" IE6+ (presumably means IE 8-) support, and
uh... Sorry, can't do this. :)

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

#16004

On Sep 19, 10:44 am, John G Harris <j...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 at 22:57:15, in comp.lang.javascript, David Mark
> wrote:
>
>    <snip>
>
> >The final (I hope) punchline is coming in early 2013 when they drop
> >all support for IE 8- (not a misprint, they really are lumping IE 8 in
> >with the previous versions) from the main branch. At that point, the
> >entire project becomes superfluous. Hopefully it will vanish quickly,
> >but realistically it will take years to scrape this mess off the Web
> >(see Prototype).
>
> Seriously, are they really thinking of stopping all Win XP users from
> buying on-line ? (IE9+ aren't available for XP).

Yes, they really are that ignorant. Notice that I said "from the main
branch" though. They are freezing 1.9 and will ostensibly mirror all
changes to the new 2.x branch in 1.9. So you can just pick whichever
version "suits your needs". I can't explain it further or I'll start
laughing uncontrollably. :)

See their press release (and subsequent public outcry).

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

#16000

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:57:15 -0700 (PDT), David Mark wrote:

>Here they "grow" again:
>
>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clarification
>...

Have you ever thought of writing a jQuery-compatible kQuery?
(:-)

I guess there could be money in this too. Unless, of course,
jQuery then copies your code.

Hans-Georg

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

#16006

On Sep 19, 11:34 am, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
georgNoEmailPle...@michna.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:57:15 -0700 (PDT), David Mark wrote:
> >Here they "grow" again:
>
> >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clari...
> >...
>
> Have you ever thought of writing a jQuery-compatible kQuery?
> (:-)

Not really. My Library has a set of jQuery-like interfaces that
demonstrate how trivial they are to implement. It's fairly
comprehensive, wrapping most of the API functions. One difference is
that it does not use a single constructor to abstract such wildly
different objects as windows, document and elements.

E = one element
Q = one or more elements (query result or array)
D = document
W = window

Then there are a couple that inherit from E:

I = image
C = control (inputs)

See the TaskSpeed tests for examples of how those are used.

>
> I guess there could be money in this too. Unless, of course,
> jQuery then copies your code.

There's no money in giving away free scripts. That's why they sell T-
shirts and support services.

Currently, I'm the "executive producer" of this project, which is more
like what I had envisioned for My Library at the start:

https://github.com/rassie/jessie

There are about a dozen developers working on it and I know of one
huge concern in Europe that is already using it (despite its infancy).
Perhaps I'll sell support services for that effort in the future. In
the meantime, I do mostly consulting and training, occasionally
revisiting the book when I get a breather.

And, believe it or not, posting here is still a great way to get
leads. I sure don't do this for my health alone. :)

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

#16009

On Sep 19, 2:44 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 11:34 am, Hans-Georg Michna <hans-
>
> georgNoEmailPle...@michna.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:57:15 -0700 (PDT), David Mark wrote:
> > >Here they "grow" again:
>
> > >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10978870/jquery-prop-vs-attr-clari...
> > >...
>
> > Have you ever thought of writing a jQuery-compatible kQuery?
> > (:-)
>
> Not really. My Library has a set of jQuery-like interfaces that
> demonstrate how trivial they are to implement. It's fairly
> comprehensive, wrapping most of the API functions. One difference is
> that it does not use a single constructor to abstract such wildly
> different objects as windows, document and elements.
>
> E = one element
> Q = one or more elements (query result or array)
> D = document
> W = window
>
> Then there are a couple that inherit from E:
>
> I = image
> C = control (inputs)
>
> See the TaskSpeed tests for examples of how those are used.
>
>
>
> > I guess there could be money in this too. Unless, of course,
> > jQuery then copies your code.
>
> There's no money in giving away free scripts. That's why they sell T-
> shirts and support services.
>

Oh, and advertising. Did you know that My Library is now brought to
you in part by Big Fish Games? :)

http://www.bigfishgames.com/

A New Game Every Day.

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

#16013

On Sep 19, 1:57 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The final (I hope) punchline is coming in early 2013 when they drop
> all support for IE 8- (not a misprint, they really are lumping IE 8 in
> with the previous versions) from the main branch. At that point, the
> entire project becomes superfluous. Hopefully it will vanish quickly,
> but realistically it will take years to scrape this mess off the Web
> (see Prototype).

For more information:

https://gist.github.com/3445646

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

#16015

> $(el).prop('value') == el.value;
> $(el).attr('value') != el.value;

The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read the 
docs, man :)

> Unfortunately for everybody
> that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
> reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed them
> here (literally the next day IIRC).

The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)

There are logistical issues to altering an API on a library with 
millions of users. It's much easier on a library with a user base I can 
count using my fingers - a luxury your library has enjoyed for half a 
decade. :)

http://ejohn.org/blog/jquery-16-and-attr/ :)

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

#16016

On Sep 19, 5:26 pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> > $(el).prop('value') == el.value;
> > $(el).attr('value') != el.value;
>
> The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read the
> docs, man :)
>
> > Unfortunately for everybody
> > that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
> > reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed them
> > here (literally the next day IIRC).
>
> The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)

Sorry, no. Not only did they split "attr" and "prop" as a direct
result of both my near-constant and well-deserved criticism of "attr",
but Resig even copied my Attributes primer to their repository for
testing (but then you knew that). Not to mention that Resig
participated in a thread back in the fall of 2007 where the "attr"
problems were first outlined.

I'm not revisiting that *again*; suffice to say that there were
numerous, long-winded discussions related to that thread (and "attr"
specifically) in the *jQuery group* for years to come. Matt Kruse
initiated a couple of them. Resig also copied (almost verbatim) the
"magic attributes flag" that I gave him in that thread. It was the
cornerstone for their "breakthrough" 1.3 version (which ostensibly
eliminated all browser sniffing). But then, you knew that too; so what
is all of your noise in aid of?

http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html

Furthermore, someone called "Timmy" (last name escapes me) wrote a
blog entry describing the split. I commented and told him exactly how
he screwed it up and that he would either have to fix it or revert the
whole mess. Clearly he chose the latter (the next day IIRC), after a
few juvenile insults were tossed around, and then proceeded to delete
all of my comments. :(

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/a195f1fff1975ca0/5cee91ec32a72bc2

You know you've won an argument when the other side tries to hide all
evidence that it ever took place. I suspect your comment is also along
these lines (i.e. trying to obscure the obvious facts). You simply
can't accept the fact that your chosen brand of browser scripts is so
heavily influenced by my work. Get over it and perhaps re-think your
whole view of the history behind these machinations.

> There are logistical issues to altering an API on a library with
> millions of users.

Yes, thanks for that. That's roughly what I told Timmy when they
changed the "attr" method instead of deprecating it and creating some
new method to handle attributes properly (something they still lack to
this day). It's ironic that a CSS selector query engine would try to
get by without proper attribute-handling code, but that's basically
the story of "Sizzle".

> It's much easier on a library with a user base I can
> count using my fingers - a luxury your library has enjoyed for half a
> decade. :)

Even easier when you design and build it right from the start and
therefore don't have to keep changing tacks. ;)

>
> http://ejohn.org/blog/jquery-16-and-attr/:)

That just shows Resig is a transparent and disingenuous twit. He
didn't even think to thank me for all of my contributions. The idea
that you would use that to somehow support your... well, you don't
really have any arguments, do you? :)

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

#16017

On Sep 19, 5:59 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 5:26 pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
>
> > > $(el).prop('value') == el.value;
> > > $(el).attr('value') != el.value;
>
> > The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read the
> > docs, man :)
>
> > > Unfortunately for everybody
> > > that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
> > > reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed them
> > > here (literally the next day IIRC).
>
> > The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)
>
> Sorry, no. Not only did they split "attr" and "prop" as a direct
> result of both my near-constant and well-deserved criticism of "attr",
> but Resig even copied my Attributes primer to their repository for
> testing (but then you knew that). Not to mention that Resig
> participated in a thread back in the fall of 2007 where the "attr"
> problems were first outlined.
>
> I'm not revisiting that *again*; suffice to say that there were
> numerous, long-winded discussions related to that thread (and "attr"
> specifically) in the *jQuery group* for years to come. Matt Kruse
> initiated a couple of them. Resig also copied (almost verbatim) the
> "magic attributes flag" that I gave him in that thread. It was the
> cornerstone for their "breakthrough" 1.3 version (which ostensibly
> eliminated all browser sniffing). But then, you knew that too; so what
> is all of your noise in aid of?
>
> http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html
>
> Furthermore, someone called "Timmy" (last name escapes me) wrote a
> blog entry describing the split. I commented and told him exactly how
> he screwed it up and that he would either have to fix it or revert the
> whole mess. Clearly he chose the latter (the next day IIRC), after a
> few juvenile insults were tossed around, and then proceeded to delete
> all of my comments. :(
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/th...
>
> You know you've won an argument when the other side tries to hide all
> evidence that it ever took place.

Update, on clicking the link to Timmy's explanation of the attr/prop
split, I ended up on his home page. So he has since deleted the entire
post (or is simply an incompetent Web developer). :(

Furthermore, that guy is a major contributor to jQuery, along with
other well-known buffoons like light-saber guy and Resig. These are
not just bad programmers. These are truly *stupid* (not to mention
dishonest) people. I should know as I've spent years coaching them and
they still can't figure out where they are going wrong. They just plod
along, year after year, on the same stupid course, occasionally
hurling insults at people who are genuinely trying to help them (to
help the Web). Then again, give them a break as I think they are all
in their twenties, so their brains are still trying to develop. :)

No sensible business would want anything to do with a software project
like this (and run by such obvious frauds). It's really that simple
(painful as it may be to swallow).

You may not like me for saying so (and I really don't care), but it's
not me that's lying to you. See if you can count the number of
misleading statements on the front page of the jQuery site. If you
can't spot any then you need to do some (real) due diligence (and
reading blog posts by jQuery fans doesn't count).

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

#16018

On Sep 19, 5:59 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 5:26 pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
>
> > > $(el).prop('value') == el.value;
> > > $(el).attr('value') != el.value;
>
> > The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read the
> > docs, man :)
>
> > > Unfortunately for everybody
> > > that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
> > > reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed them
> > > here (literally the next day IIRC).
>
> > The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)
>
> Sorry, no. Not only did they split "attr" and "prop" as a direct
> result of both my near-constant and well-deserved criticism of "attr",
> but Resig even copied my Attributes primer to their repository for
> testing (but then you knew that). Not to mention that Resig
> participated in a thread back in the fall of 2007 where the "attr"
> problems were first outlined.
>
> I'm not revisiting that *again*; suffice to say that there were
> numerous, long-winded discussions related to that thread (and "attr"
> specifically) in the *jQuery group* for years to come. Matt Kruse
> initiated a couple of them. Resig also copied (almost verbatim) the
> "magic attributes flag" that I gave him in that thread. It was the
> cornerstone for their "breakthrough" 1.3 version (which ostensibly
> eliminated all browser sniffing). But then, you knew that too; so what
> is all of your noise in aid of?
>
> http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html
>
> Furthermore, someone called "Timmy" (last name escapes me) wrote a
> blog entry describing the split. I commented and told him exactly how
> he screwed it up and that he would either have to fix it or revert the
> whole mess. Clearly he chose the latter (the next day IIRC), after a
> few juvenile insults were tossed around, and then proceeded to delete
> all of my comments. :(
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/th...
>
> You know you've won an argument when the other side tries to hide all
> evidence that it ever took place. I suspect your comment is also along
> these lines (i.e. trying to obscure the obvious facts). You simply
> can't accept the fact that your chosen brand of browser scripts is so
> heavily influenced by my work. Get over it and perhaps re-think your
> whole view of the history behind these machinations.
>
> > There are logistical issues to altering an API on a library with
> > millions of users.
>
> Yes, thanks for that. That's roughly what I told Timmy when they
> changed the "attr" method instead of deprecating it and creating some
> new method to handle attributes properly (something they still lack to
> this day). It's ironic that a CSS selector query engine would try to
> get by without proper attribute-handling code, but that's basically
> the story of "Sizzle".
>
> > It's much easier on a library with a user base I can
> > count using my fingers - a luxury your library has enjoyed for half a
> > decade. :)
>
> Even easier when you design and build it right from the start and
> therefore don't have to keep changing tacks. ;)
>
>
>
> >http://ejohn.org/blog/jquery-16-and-attr/:)
>
> That just shows Resig is a transparent and disingenuous twit. He
> didn't even think to thank me for all of my contributions. The idea
> that you would use that to somehow support your... well, you don't
> really have any arguments, do you? :)

Hmmm. Also shows that he has no idea what his script does (or did).

"In jQuery 1.5.2, and older, in order to access a DOM property you
would have to do something like this:

var elem = $("#foo")[0];
if ( elem ) {
  index = elem.selectedIndex;
}"

Like hell. The original "attr" returned (mostly) property values in an
HTML DOM (and attribute values in an XML DOM). I (among others)
explained this to him years before he wrote this.

Too much. :(

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

#16019

On 9/19/2012 2:59 PM, David Mark wrote:
> On Sep 19, 5:26 pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
>>> $(el).prop('value') == el.value;
>>> $(el).attr('value') != el.value;
>>
>> The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read the
>> docs, man :)
>>
>>> Unfortunately for everybody
>>> that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
>>> reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed them
>>> here (literally the next day IIRC).
>>
>> The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)
>
> Sorry, no. Not only did they split "attr" and "prop" as a direct
> result of both my near-constant and well-deserved criticism of "attr",

That's quite a leap of faith! Sadly, I doubt this is true :(

> but Resig even copied my Attributes primer to their repository for
> testing (but then you knew that). Not to mention that Resig
> participated in a thread back in the fall of 2007 where the "attr"
> problems were first outlined.
>
> I'm not revisiting that *again*; suffice to say that there were
> numerous, long-winded discussions related to that thread (and "attr"
> specifically) in the *jQuery group* for years to come. Matt Kruse
> initiated a couple of them. Resig also copied (almost verbatim) the
> "magic attributes flag" that I gave him in that thread. It was the
> cornerstone for their "breakthrough" 1.3 version (which ostensibly
> eliminated all browser sniffing). But then, you knew that too; so what
> is all of your noise in aid of?
>
> http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html
>
> Furthermore, someone called "Timmy" (last name escapes me) wrote a
> blog entry describing the split. I commented and told him exactly how
> he screwed it up and that he would either have to fix it or revert the
> whole mess. Clearly he chose the latter (the next day IIRC), after a
> few juvenile insults were tossed around, and then proceeded to delete
> all of my comments. :(
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/a195f1fff1975ca0/5cee91ec32a72bc2
>
> You know you've won an argument when the other side tries to hide all
> evidence that it ever took place. I suspect your comment is also along
> these lines (i.e. trying to obscure the obvious facts). You simply
> can't accept the fact that your chosen brand of browser scripts is so
> heavily influenced by my work. Get over it and perhaps re-think your
> whole view of the history behind these machinations.

Other than your insistence that this is true, there's nothing here that 
backs up your claims. They *did* revisit an ill-advised design decision 
of attempting to normalize attributes and properties into one function 
for ease of API. Your rants were the reason for that eventual decision? 
That seems very, very unlikely. :(

If it's credit you're after, and you seem to be complaining about that 
more and more, you should produce something people find useful. So they 
can credit you with it. You might have gotten some credit for helping in 
this case, but according to the thread you threatened legal action so 
they weren't able to use anything of yours that would have helped. So 
you didn't receive credit. Because you didn't actually help. That's how 
these things work. :(

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

#16022

On Sep 19, 6:29 pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 2:59 PM, David Mark wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 5:26 pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> >>> $(el).prop('value') == el.value;
> >>> $(el).attr('value') != el.value;
>
> >> The .val() method should be used for getting and setting value. Read the
> >> docs, man :)
>
> >>> Unfortunately for everybody
> >>> that relies on jQuery for simplified DOM manipulation, they half-
> >>> reverted these changes (almost immediately) as soon as I reviewed them
> >>> here (literally the next day IIRC).
>
> >> The notion that they reverted anything because of you is laughable. :)
>
> > Sorry, no. Not only did they split "attr" and "prop" as a direct
> > result of both my near-constant and well-deserved criticism of "attr",
>
> That's quite a leap of faith! Sadly, I doubt this is true :(

It's not a leap of faith; it's been quite well-documented (by me, Matt
Kruse, several other jQuery enthusiasts, as well as Resig himself).
All you have to do is follow my links and *read*.

And sadly, your doubts are not my concern.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > but Resig even copied my Attributes primer to their repository for
> > testing (but then you knew that). Not to mention that Resig
> > participated in a thread back in the fall of 2007 where the "attr"
> > problems were first outlined.
>
> > I'm not revisiting that *again*; suffice to say that there were
> > numerous, long-winded discussions related to that thread (and "attr"
> > specifically) in the *jQuery group* for years to come. Matt Kruse
> > initiated a couple of them. Resig also copied (almost verbatim) the
> > "magic attributes flag" that I gave him in that thread. It was the
> > cornerstone for their "breakthrough" 1.3 version (which ostensibly
> > eliminated all browser sniffing). But then, you knew that too; so what
> > is all of your noise in aid of?
>
> >http://www.cinsoft.net/host.html
>
> > Furthermore, someone called "Timmy" (last name escapes me) wrote a
> > blog entry describing the split. I commented and told him exactly how
> > he screwed it up and that he would either have to fix it or revert the
> > whole mess. Clearly he chose the latter (the next day IIRC), after a
> > few juvenile insults were tossed around, and then proceeded to delete
> > all of my comments. :(
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/th...
>
> > You know you've won an argument when the other side tries to hide all
> > evidence that it ever took place. I suspect your comment is also along
> > these lines (i.e. trying to obscure the obvious facts). You simply
> > can't accept the fact that your chosen brand of browser scripts is so
> > heavily influenced by my work. Get over it and perhaps re-think your
> > whole view of the history behind these machinations.
>
> Other than your insistence that this is true, there's nothing here that
> backs up your claims.

Except a seemingly endless "paper" trail. Again, *read* the
discussions, starting all the way back in 2007.

> They *did* revisit an ill-advised design decision
> of attempting to normalize attributes and properties into one function
> for ease of API.

Yes, four years later after numerous discussions that referenced my
articles criticizing this very design decision. Again, many of these
discussions took place in jQuery's own group. The fact that you refuse
to go back and look at them tells me you are just trying to obfuscate
the issue. Why is anyone's guess. My diagnosis is cognitive
dissonance. You might seek a professional opinion about that
though. ;)

> Your rants were the reason for that eventual decision?

Your characterization of my painfully detailed analyses of "attr" as
"rants" speaks volumes. Your brain just can't cope with reality (or
you simply don't understand the so-called rants at all).

> That seems very, very unlikely. :(

You seem very, very clueless about... well, everything. :(

>
> If it's credit you're after, and you seem to be complaining about that
> more and more, you should produce something people find useful.]

I am not after anything here, except for correcting your BS
assertions. Virtually everybody on the planet (save for you) is aware
of my contributions to jQuery, Dojo and many other such efforts. You
just seem to live in your own little world. :)

> So they
> can credit you with it. You might have gotten some credit for helping in
> this case, but according to the thread you threatened legal action so
> they weren't able to use anything of yours that would have helped.

You just don't get it. They copied my material without my permission.
They certainly *read* at least some of it before they decided it was
worth trying to lift. And this was *long* after the fact anyway. As
mentioned, the first review in 2007 is what brought the issue to their
attention.

> So
> you didn't receive credit. Because you didn't actually help. That's how
> these things work. :(

Again, I don't think you understand how *anything* works. Your whole
online existence seems to revolve around trying to discredit me. Think
about that. ;)

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

#16024

On 9/19/2012 4:01 PM, David Mark wrote:

> Virtually everybody on the planet (save for you) is aware
> of my contributions to jQuery

Um, no. You seem to hypothesize that you've been a driving force behind 
changes to the most popular library out there but there are very few, if 
any, who would agree with you. Sorry bro.  :(

> Dojo

I recall reading your contributions to Dojo in the past, on their 
mailing list. Very amusing stuff. :)

Are we done yet?

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

#16027

On Sep 19, 8:09 pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/2012 4:01 PM, David Mark wrote:
>
> > Virtually everybody on the planet (save for you) is aware
> > of my contributions to jQuery
>
> Um, no. You seem to hypothesize that you've been a driving force behind
> changes to the most popular library out there but there are very few, if
> any, who would agree with you. Sorry bro.  :(

There are very few that have a clue what goes on inside that script
and behind the scenes of its development. Certainly *you* are not on
that list. But, among those who bother to *read* the history, the
origin of the "attr"/"prop" split (and subsequent flailing rewrites)
is quite clear. Among those who don't, there's certainly a sneaking
suspicion (where there's smoke and all). But you alone remain
oblivious.

And no need to apologize. Your approval is hardly necessary.

>
> > Dojo
>
> I recall reading your contributions to Dojo in the past, on their
> mailing list. Very amusing stuff. :)

Indeed, you certainly are a die-hard fan of my works. If you
understood the discussions and their ramifications, you should have
found them amusing. They mangled attributes and properties in much the
same way as jQuery and also failed to fix them in a timely manner due
to a culture entrenched in guesswork and misunderstanding. They
couldn't even express what they thought their "attr" method was
supposed to do (suspect they copied it from jQuery or vice versa). Un-
declaring all of their globals to make their code "faster" and using
synchronous XHR to load scripts were also amusing bits.

You might also like this:

https://gist.github.com/2845842

Yes, that's right. The so-called "AMD" architecture is undisputedly
based on my rewrite of the Dojo loader. Go ahead, claim that you can't
see it. James Burke tried the same thing, right there in the thread
where he lifted it. He certainly couldn't fool me, but you seem
deluded enough to buy in to such obvious fantasy. :)

>
> Are we done yet?

I certainly hope so. :)

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web