diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'content/blog/2008-9-30-why-mootools-or-why-not-jquery.markdown')
| -rw-r--r-- | content/blog/2008-9-30-why-mootools-or-why-not-jquery.markdown | 34 |
1 files changed, 34 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/content/blog/2008-9-30-why-mootools-or-why-not-jquery.markdown b/content/blog/2008-9-30-why-mootools-or-why-not-jquery.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..734f569 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/blog/2008-9-30-why-mootools-or-why-not-jquery.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +title: "Why MooTools (or Why not JQuery)" +date: 2008-09-30T10:26:00Z +comments: false +url: /post/52467447/why-mootools-or-why-not-jquery +tags: +--- + +##UPDATE 2012: this post is dumb and angsty, dont read + +I’ve been toying around with MooTools a bit lately, and I’ve found the experience quite enjoyable and refreshing. Naturally, I [twittered](http://twitter.com/capotej/statuses/939831956) about it and went along my merry way. Moments later (and much to my surprise), I had a direct message from John Resig himself asking “Why, what’s wrong with jQuery?”. I was pretty taken aback that he would take time from his surely busy day to message a total stranger in an effort to improve his project or at least gain an insight in the everyday life of a js developer (it’s not like DHH would personally message people that are dumping rails to use merb). I figured he deserved a straight, honest answer; One that at least would be longer than [140 characters](http://twitter.com/capotej/statuses/940082809) (even though I managed to use every single one). So it begs the question, Why MooTools? + +* Class support. JQuery’s SQL-like syntax is fine for quick and dirty javascripting, but eventually you’ll want real classes to structure your UI logic. + +* It smells, feels and tastes like regular javascript. JQuery doesn’t even look like javascript, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since that’s kind of their goal. MooTools however, feels like just an extension of the language + +* Faster. [‘Nuff Said](http://mootools.net/slickspeed/) EDIT: This was pointed out to be false; It is only faster in certain cases (such as mine, WebKit nightly on OS X). + +* Robert Penner’s easing equations baked right in.This could just be me, but I find the animations that mootools creates are alot smoother than JQuery’s (especially the easing). + +* Creating new DOM elements is a snap.Need to create a dom element? `var el = new Element(‘a’, { ‘href’: ‘juliocapote.com’});` Done. + +* Modular. I like that I can just build and pull down a moo.js that only contains the functionality I need. + +* Better Documented.Or at least, its faster to find what you need. + +* Easier to hack on and extend. While I haven’t personally delved into the internals of either system, the consensus seems to be that jquery is an unintelligible mess when it comes to modifying how it works. + +* Prototype Approach (versus a namespaced approach) This is really just matter of preference; MooTools achieves it’s magic by just extending the prototypes of common objects (Array, String, etc); While this is obstrusive, it makes for shorter, more natural code. JQuery does its thing via a main object (which you can name, hence the namespace), that you wrap around whatever you want to make magical; This is unobstrusive, but you pay for that by having to wrap anything you want to use (which ends up being everything). It basically boils down to arr.each(fn) vs $.each(arr, fn) + +* It’s not a revolution. It feels as if JQuery is trying to take on the world (it seems like it too, since its now included with visual studio and the nokia sdk). However, I’m not; I’m just trying to write some javascript here. + + +It’s not like I’m never going to use JQuery again; It simply isn’t my default js framework any longer. |