This is surely the right step to do for them.
For Emil, and many other people using the full prototype and scriptaculous: How big is all of that together? I thought we're talking somthing like 60k for prototype alone. Since when is filesize and dependencies of a webpage not an issue any more?
Just because I have broadband doesn't mean that I'm happy to wait the same time per page that I did back in 2002 with ISDN.
Of course, it's cached and all, but if I find something that's 20k instead, that does all I need... that's probably the smarter choice, or am I wrong here? I guess I could answer my question myself by pointing out the "it does all I need". So what can scriptaculous do, that the moo.tools can't?

Emil said on September 11, 2006

overtype: I agree, why rush things. Let the demo and documentation part of a project take it's time - then release it.

Matthias: Size does matter, but I don't think the majority of web developers care - and that was what I described with myself as an example. I'm using scriptaculous and prototype because I know how to use it and I don't have time to learn the same thing over again, I want to put my time on projects/clients to earn money.

But If I hade time, I would like try it out , of course.

Rasmus said on September 11, 2006

moo.fx was really easy to get your feet wet with and it is IMHO completely free of bloat which I think in itself deserves praise. 2 thumbs up!

Tim Harrison said on September 11, 2006

Disregard for file size is really annoying.

Take some of these new Ajax startpages for example. Waiting nearly 10 seconds for my homepage to load on a broadband connection is totally unacceptable. And with home broadband penetration about 50% in the U.S. (according to The Bandwidth Report), hundreds of millions of dial-up users are alienated right of the bat.

I'm eagerly anticipating the demos for this library.

Isaiah said on September 11, 2006

Moo is absolutely where it's at. And if you need to add dynamic content to a static site without the overhead of a 200K download moo really is the only option.
Being a dedicated moo.fx guy I've already given mootools a good run through. There are definitely some issues to iron out, but some of new constructs they've added are truly inspired.
It may be the most inspired 20K of code that I've ever seen.

Isaiah

s.w.pollux said on September 12, 2006

enjoy it and look forward to

Jason Kataropoulos said on September 13, 2006

It is all very exciting. On the other hand, I tend to be careful before I start adopting JavaScript libraries. I usually end up using the most popular one instead of the best one (best one according to my perception).

Other than that, I think that mootools definitely deserve some attention due to the fact that moo.fx is compact and impressive. I would only expect the same kind of taste by mootools!

Sorry, comments are closed for this post. If you have any further questions or comments, feel free to send them to me directly.
f2富二代官网入口