Comments on: Why Using A JavaScript Library May Not Be Ideal

By: dwElla

dwElla — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:51:20 +0000

Oh, smashing announcement close to this post. Should wish to let me know how long period of time it will take? Just because I want to do some thesis proposal or may be it will be good to determine the dissertation writing. Thank you a lot.

By: Figo

Figo — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:49:16 +0000

@keif Thank you for your input. You make a valid point. Particularly when it comes to Ajax. A lib will handle the different XHR object types for different user agents – for instance – so that you don’t have to.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in the first paragraph of this post. I use JS libs all the time but in this case my objectives were a little bit different.

For my purposes I did not need all the other goodies that a JS lib has to offer, down the line I can easily migrate to a JS lib should I wish to add more boom-whizz-bang to this blog

By: keif

keif — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 04:01:55 +0000

I think you’re missing the point of JavaScript libraries – you are totally correct that they are overkill if you want one simple effect on your site, but what if down the road you want animation? What if you want cross-browser AJAX calls? What if you want XYZ, yadda yadda yadda, the options go on and on.

The point is – starting with a library means it’s easy to add down the road – if you add a library now, you’re set for future instances.

Of course, we can argue semantics “the code could be done differently, more efficiently as a class” etc. etc. but I think you get the point

By: Figo

Figo — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:03:29 +0000

@cody Thanks for the info. DOMAssistant looks quite interesting, I will definitely give it a go.

By: cody lindley

cody lindley — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:01:30 +0000

I agree. I will often use DOMAssistant (parts of it) when a lib. is just overkill.

http://www.domassistant.com/

cody