Comments on: JQuery UI vs. Scriptaculous

By: viola sheet music free

viola sheet music free — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 03:58:41 +0000

lady gaga’s music video…

This is my blog about lady gaga’s music video…

By: one

one — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 15:35:31 +0000

I find it a bad article because it only describes the features of jQuery UI’s show() function, you can do more options such as “direction” for blind, and like the fade effect, there is fadeIn() and fadeOut(). Even fadeTo(). Scriptaculous can only target ID’s, jQuery can handle multiple groups at the same time with the .class selector or the tag selector, or any other css3 selector like :contains().
Maybe Scriptaculous has better effects, i dont know, but jQuery is easier to use.

By: fast easy payday loans rapid earn money

fast easy payday loans rapid earn money — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 05:49:27 +0000

fast easy payday loans rapid earn money…

We provide no credit check payday loans online. It’s easy and quick….

By: LENORARaymond32

LENORARaymond32 — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:21:53 +0000

It's well known that money can make people independent. But how to act if one has no cash? The one way is to try to get the loan or consolidation loan.

By: Jadet

Jadet — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:22:18 +0000

Scriptaculous is way ahead of jQuery when it comes to proper queue and scoping, these things are at the core of a good animation library.

In jQuery an effect scope is bound to the element on which the effect takes place, a lot of people have written plugins in attempts to create global and shared scopes to fix this flaw. There’s a queue/dequeue priciple in jQuery that does nothing to fix this and even introduces more limitations by not playing nicely with animate.

Scriptaculous got all of this right. It’s Effect.Event alone proves that jQuery’s queue/dequeue alongside of animate is a terrible implementation.

If your goal is to write real application in Javascript you shouldn’t be looking at jQuery. You will be spending a lot of time fixing flaws like the effect-queue I’ve just described. jQuery has these design flaws because at it’s core is DOM manipulation which has been taken too far. The whole library is coded around chaining up code to work on DOM nodes, this approach shouldn’t have been carried through into the effects part of the library since it brings along limitations.

The dom query approach, as easy as it might seem for newcommers, is also jQuery’s biggest flaw. Prototype and Scriptaculous are thought out much better, it’s the obvious choice if you are a coder that knows what he’s doing with Javascript.

By: Tim

Tim — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:22:45 +0000

@yed, this is very true and I did miss this point in comparison. In my opinion though Scriptaculous still offers more options for the effect functions as well as a wider array.

@Mustang, that comparison is very nice and well thought out, I would like to see more of the standards they used when testing. They make no mention of the hardware used and which options were chosen within the browsers.

By: doomedlung

doomedlung — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:14:55 +0000

The implementation code for Scriptaculous can be shortened to: $(‘id_of_element’).selectedEffect({ options });

By: Mustang

Mustang — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:36:29 +0000

If you are using all(or several) of those effects, I assume you’ll be using prototype and scriptaculous heavily.

In such scope, it scares me when I see this http://blog.creonfx.com/javascript/mootools-vs-jquery-vs-prototype-vs-yui-vs-dojo-comparison-revised , because I’ve been bitten before by poor performance of a js library.

PS: That case was a rich interface with thousands of selectors and an old version of jquery(pre-sizzle)

By: yed_

yed_ — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:37:46 +0000

Good article. JQuery has some effects in basic, ie. ‘fade’, ‘opacity’ alternative fadeTo(). Because jQuery UI doesn’t work without jQuery, we can say that jQuery UI has these effects too.