Hi everybody,
I'm still using Mootools (and I'm using it since 2010) because it lets me
be creative. I love it. That's enough reason. I hope it's going to be
mantained.
In the same way, during the early 90's I used Clipper 5.x instead of Fox
for writing applications: Clipper let me be creative, while Fox was a
solution. I don't need solutions. Instead, I make solutions by means of
good tools.
I'm very glad I found this group.
Abrazos
Daniel
El martes, 12 de diciembre de 2017, 7:33:52 (UTC-3), Tor escribió:
>
> Hi,
> long time user of Mootools here.
>
> *Why I still use Mootools*
> For years and years I've used Mootools, in the beginning to be able to
> overcome browser quirks/differences, and now because it's still the only
> library that seamlessly integrates with vanilla javascript.
> The core idea behind Mootools, which has been used as a baseball bat
> against mootools, has saved the library for me.
>
> Instead of having to upgrade to new module packagers and weird
> ever-changing syntax and idioms I've been able to just ease into new
> javascript API:s and solutions without having a javascript library work
> against me. While people used to complain about Mootools extending the DOM
> I always felt that Mootools saved the DOM.
>
> While lots of my peers have moved on to using React I can't help to feel
> like I'm already one step beyond all the new problems that React users are
> facing. I've looked at Vue.js but again I can't really see where I would
> improve over controlling the DOM via Mootools. The abstractions of these
> engines really cements how applications needs to be built and you can't
> migerate code between these kind of solutions. At the same time turning a
> Mootools-powered system into a Progressive Web App (PWA) took less than one
> day.
>
> *What I would like from a new slimmer version of Mootools*
> With all that said I'm greatful for every new core javascript feature that
> brings vanilla javascript closer to Mootools and if there ever is any new
> versions of Mootools I would like it to close the gap between Mootools and
> vanilla by kicking out code supporting old browsers.
>
> I'm considering cloning Mootools for my own projects, dropping everything
> I don't need, and replace/deprecate any implementations that now have
> proper browser support.
>
> Has anyone else had these thoughts? What frameworks have you migrated to
> and why?
> If you can't argue for using Mootools can you at least argue against using
> vanilla javascript?
>
> Best Regards
> Tor Viktorsson
>
> PS.
> I'm currently writing mostly Node.js server backends that talk to single
> page javascript clients running nothing but REST powered by Mootools
> Request that I have extended as shown below.
> I also use the Class.Thenable utillity class alot clientside instead of
> using Promises at the moment because I like that I can reset and reuse
> Thenables. These days Promises has better browser support so perhaps I will
> give up reset/reuse-ability if that increases performance but I haven't
> proven that yet.
>
> Request.REST = new Class({
> Extends: Request,
> options: {
> secure: true
> },
> initialize: function(options){
> options.urlEncoded = false
> options.emulation = false
> this.parent(options)
>
> var encoding = (this.options.encoding) ? '; charset=' +
> this.options.encoding : ''
> Object.append(this.headers, {
> 'Accept': 'application/json',
> 'X-Request': 'JSON',
> 'Content-Type': 'application/json' + encoding
> })
> },
> success: function(text){
> var json
> try {
> json = this.response.json = JSON.decode(text, this.options.secure)
> } catch (error){
> this.fireEvent('error', [text, error])
> return
> }
> if (json == null){
> this.failure()
> } else {
> this.onSuccess(json, text)
> this.resolve({json: json, text: text})
> }
> }
> })
>
>
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MooTools Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
