SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Notice: This is a discussion thread for comments about the SitePoint article, YUI 3: Lighter, Faster, Easier to Use.
    __________

    Looks like they've taken some coding style tips from Jquery, e.preventDefault() for example. I like the look of the new syntax changes but I just wonder how hard it'll be for YUI to establish a handhold, essentially from scratch, in the already crowded JS Framework arena.

    Time (and developer popularity) will tell I guess.

  2. #2
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I really liked YUI2 but got sucked into the whole jQuery thing due to it's ease of use and available components. But for me it always felt like writing jQuery rather than javascript, so I think I'll be giving YUI3 another go, particularly if the documentation and support is as good as YUI2.

  3. #3
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,401
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Same here, got sucked in w/ YUI then w/ jQuery then w/ Flex.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Wizard Darren884's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Southern California, United States
    Posts
    1,616
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Amazing, however my only worry is how long Yahoo will be around to support it...

  5. #5
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,401
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Darren884 View Post
    Amazing, however my only worry is how long Yahoo will be around to support it...
    I'm 100% sure, YUI will last very very very long time. For one, they are using YUI on every web application they have. In a way, they did not create YUI for the community, it's for themselves. So, if anyone who wants to use YUI, then users are providing free "testing" in exchange of using their framework.

  6. #6
    phpLD Fanatic bronze trophy dvduval's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    3,626
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What's also nice is these days it is pretty easy to use multiple libraries so if you like something in YUI, and something else in Scriptaculous, you can easily use both.

  7. #7
    Anonymous
    SitePoint Community Guest
    I wonder if the file sizes were reduced considerably in YUI 3. Even when compressed, it can add a lot to a website with multiple YUI Utilities.

  8. #8
    alanc
    SitePoint Community Guest
    How do you think this new modular YUI compares with DOJO?

  9. #9
    Curiousmind
    SitePoint Community Guest
    This is what JQuery has been providing from long time? Is there any copy paste going on.

  10. #10
    SitePoint Addict NetNerd85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    298
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AppSol View Post
    ...But for me it always felt like writing jQuery rather than javascript...
    Isn't that the point

    We need a new scripting language, it should do the same thing as the current but with a better / tighter syntax and completely different name not relating to any other computer language
    a new day, a new beginning
    never follow the crowd, the crowd is poor!

  11. #11
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,401
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A new scripting language? it's already over flooded. Main problem w/ JavaScript is not the language, it's the compatibility issue among different browsers. What we need is a JavaScript standard that ALL browser must follow!!

  12. #12
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Regarding YUI 3's similarity to jQuery, though the syntax is similar, there are some fundamental differences. For one, jQuery is one big static object whereas YUI 3 is an instance of the library containing only the components you want. What's more you can run multiple instances on the same page. (I think jQuery can do this too, I'm not sure.)

  13. #13
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,401
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Personally, I think YUI had some lessons learned from jQuery. I can tell just from the title itself "Lighter, Faster, Easier to Use". I do use their CSS, good stuff!

  14. #14
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    Personally, I think YUI had some lessons learned from jQuery. I can tell just from the title itself "Lighter, Faster, Easier to Use". I do use their CSS, good stuff!
    I'm sure there's something to be said for their adopting prevailing trends. With that being said however, YUI 2 can hold its own as a library. But like with anything, there's always room to improve. If anything I think the fact that they were daring enough to bring the library back to formula and humble enough to adopt some practices from others shows that their interest was really just to build the best library possible.

  15. #15
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm a big fan of all of Yahoo's Developer tools. But I just have to put in my 2 cents on the whole JS framework issue. I actually learned jQuery before I really learned "real" javascript. Now that I'm fairly proficient in javascript, I find myself using it without a framework more & more. I don't know, it just seems cleaner somehow.

  16. #16
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,401
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ditch182 View Post
    I'm a big fan of all of Yahoo's Developer tools. But I just have to put in my 2 cents on the whole JS framework issue. I actually learned jQuery before I really learned "real" javascript. Now that I'm fairly proficient in javascript, I find myself using it without a framework more & more. I don't know, it just seems cleaner somehow.
    One day you'll regret not using the framework. For this, it can only be learned from hands on. I can't teach a kid not to play w/ fire..until he learns.

  17. #17
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ditch182 View Post
    I'm a big fan of all of Yahoo's Developer tools. But I just have to put in my 2 cents on the whole JS framework issue. I actually learned jQuery before I really learned "real" javascript. Now that I'm fairly proficient in javascript, I find myself using it without a framework more & more. I don't know, it just seems cleaner somehow.
    I think it's commendable to be coding without a framework. At least then you don't grow reliant on a layer of abstraction. That being said, as someone who's done a lot of JS coding without a framework, you'll soon come to realize that a) you're writing lot of the same code over and over from project to project and b) you're repeating the same cross-browser fixes over and over. These are the main reasons for a library if you ask me. To take the tediousness of baseline code out of the equation and to smooth over cross-browser bumps. Everything else is just candy. Some of it is sweeter candy than others :-)

  18. #18
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    On the example page for the article, I get a blank screen with JavaScript turned off. I know that it is only an example, but it's not really the point. People will copy the concept on "real" pages. Please, particularly on such an influential site as SitePoint, ensure that you employ best practices.

    Part of me feels that the community is going two steps forward and three steps back with JS frameworks/libraries because of things like this; just today a colleague spent 25 minutes trying to deal with a JS issue (looking up the JQuery docs, blogs etc) that instead was fixable in 30 seconds using traditional old CSS. The behaviour layer is an /enhancement/ to the presentational layer, not a replacement for it.

  19. #19
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Anton P View Post
    On the example page for the article, I get a blank screen with JavaScript turned off. I know that it is only an example, but it's not really the point. People will copy the concept on "real" pages. Please, particularly on such an influential site as SitePoint, ensure that you employ best practices.
    Anton, you're absolutely right. Normally I don't create a JavaScript/CSS dependency issue, in fact I've written about it on my blog (can't post a link, haven't posted enough on the forum... go to arapehlivanian dot com and search for "Understanding and solving the JavaScript/CSS entanglement phenomenon"). I should have kept them separate. Normally I'd hide the content with JavaScript so that if JS isn't present, it never gets hidden.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •