Slashdot Mirror

Some libraries are monstrous and require loading the full (even if compressed) feature set.

However, MooTools is highly modularized. It lets you pick and choose which parts of the total library you need. Many MooTools Add-ons will explicitly list the sections of the library needed.

If you feel it is better to re-write parts of a library, then either choose another or contribute your superior code back to the community.

OT

If it works in IE then it will work in everything else.

That's absolutely not true!
Some people even say that IE is more powerful, that's cause it have more feature and accept some code (specially CSS rules) that are non standard, so if you use IE you see them right, while actually they aren't. /OT

Back to the original question I belive there's no ONE BEST browser, it depend's on the language/library/API you use.
For example if you run the mootools test http://mootools.net/slickspeed/ of different Javascript library with different browser you'll see different result, you will see that a browser can run many different library at similar speed while another can be especially fast with one and very slow with the other.

There is already plenty of Javascript in use with free licenses, such as GPL and MIT. The main practical advice from TFA is to make it easier for users to see which license Javascript code is under simply by putting the license terms in a comment, which sounds great to me. Are you saying more transparency is a bad thing?

Are there any large speed difference in Safari, Opera and Firefox?

One test is to run SlickSpeed on different browsers. It tests the processing speed of various JavaScript frameworks (like jQuery, MooTools, etc.). Run this under IE, then under Firefox, then Safari. Try different platforms if you can. You'll see odd speed differences; for example, jQuery typically wins when using IE, while it loses terribly on Firefox.

If you run the MooTools Slickspeed tests in different browsers, you find something interesting:

• jQuery is the fastest JavaScript framework in IE6 and 7, and the slowest in FireFox, and middle-of-the-pack in Safari.
• MooTools is the fastest in Firefox and Safari, and slowest in IE.
• Prototype is generally slower than the others, particularly in Safari, and frequently doesn't perform the tests correctly.

jQuery also claims to be the most accurate, though who knows for sure.

If you run the MooTools Slickspeed tests in different browsers, you find something interesting:

• jQuery is the fastest JavaScript framework in IE6 and 7, and the slowest in FireFox, and middle-of-the-pack in Safari.
• MooTools is the fastest in Firefox and Safari, and slowest in IE.
• Prototype is generally slower than the others, particularly in Safari, and frequently doesn't perform the tests correctly.

jQuery also claims to be the most accurate, though who knows for sure.

simply faster, smaller, and more modular (read: well written) than the competition.

Leaving aside that jQuery has some substantial claims to being fast (fastest in IE6) and small (26k packed, vs MooTools 40+k packed)...

If the prevailing philosophy amongst the mootools team is in fact "more modular" == "well written" then that explains a good deal. Take a look at the download page:

http://mootools.net/download

Notice anything? There's a pretty sweet app that knows which parts of MooTools are dependent on the other parts of MooTools.

But note there's also no apparent way to download all the code -- something someone unfamiliar with the library might want to do in order to (a) read the code as part of the process of familiarizing themselves and (b) have everything present while you're still developing the familiarity required to *know* exactly what you do and don't need.

How is it that these people are smart enough to build something as cool as the sweet dependency app but not smart enough to let someone just download everything?

Well, it turns out there is a way, which they have noted over in the FAQ for the forum:

http://forum.mootools.net/viewtopic.php?id=1964#post-9398

Think about this for a moment. This is a *Frequently Asked Question* -- how to download the whole thing, which means it's obviously something people want to do. There's an answer in the FAQ that would have as easy to add, in code, to the download page, as it would have been to post to the FAQ -- possibly easier. So why is there still no "download all" link on the page?

Because the MooTools team is more interested in having their philosophy of modularity impressed on you than giving you convenient access to the code.

Not a good sign. I investigated further anyway, but found pretty much what I expected after that: in many places (enough to be annoying) the library values certain somewhat arbitrary conceptions of correctness over ease of invocation for the developer.

Prototype is peppered with all kinds of "we can't stand programming in anything other than Ruby"isms that are almost as annoying, but when it comes down to it, it's simply easier to use. And jQuery stands up *very* well in that regard.

I don't begrudge the MooTools developers their choices -- they're the ones doing it, they should write the library that pleases them. And I imagine there are users with the same mindset as the developers who will love it. But MooTools doesn't live up to the broad claims like those the parent poster made here (faster, smaller, "simply" better).

simply faster, smaller, and more modular (read: well written) than the competition.

Leaving aside that jQuery has some substantial claims to being fast (fastest in IE6) and small (26k packed, vs MooTools 40+k packed)...

If the prevailing philosophy amongst the mootools team is in fact "more modular" == "well written" then that explains a good deal. Take a look at the download page:

http://mootools.net/download

Notice anything? There's a pretty sweet app that knows which parts of MooTools are dependent on the other parts of MooTools.

But note there's also no apparent way to download all the code -- something someone unfamiliar with the library might want to do in order to (a) read the code as part of the process of familiarizing themselves and (b) have everything present while you're still developing the familiarity required to *know* exactly what you do and don't need.

How is it that these people are smart enough to build something as cool as the sweet dependency app but not smart enough to let someone just download everything?

Well, it turns out there is a way, which they have noted over in the FAQ for the forum:

http://forum.mootools.net/viewtopic.php?id=1964#post-9398

Think about this for a moment. This is a *Frequently Asked Question* -- how to download the whole thing, which means it's obviously something people want to do. There's an answer in the FAQ that would have as easy to add, in code, to the download page, as it would have been to post to the FAQ -- possibly easier. So why is there still no "download all" link on the page?

Because the MooTools team is more interested in having their philosophy of modularity impressed on you than giving you convenient access to the code.

Not a good sign. I investigated further anyway, but found pretty much what I expected after that: in many places (enough to be annoying) the library values certain somewhat arbitrary conceptions of correctness over ease of invocation for the developer.

Prototype is peppered with all kinds of "we can't stand programming in anything other than Ruby"isms that are almost as annoying, but when it comes down to it, it's simply easier to use. And jQuery stands up *very* well in that regard.

I don't begrudge the MooTools developers their choices -- they're the ones doing it, they should write the library that pleases them. And I imagine there are users with the same mindset as the developers who will love it. But MooTools doesn't live up to the broad claims like those the parent poster made here (faster, smaller, "simply" better).

I've used dojo, jQuery, mochi, mootools, prototype, and rico javascript libraries and I wouldn't bother with jQuery. My personal favorite is mootools, a better javascript framework. Mootools is simply faster, smaller, and more modular (read: well written) than the competition.

I've used dojo, jQuery, mochi, mootools, prototype, and rico javascript libraries and I wouldn't bother with jQuery. My personal favorite is mootools, a better javascript framework. Mootools is simply faster, smaller, and more modular (read: well written) than the competition.

I've used dojo, jQuery, mochi, mootools, prototype, and rico javascript libraries and I wouldn't bother with jQuery. My personal favorite is mootools, a better javascript framework. Mootools is simply faster, smaller, and more modular (read: well written) than the competition.

I've used dojo, jQuery, mochi, mootools, prototype, and rico javascript libraries and I wouldn't bother with jQuery. My personal favorite is mootools, a better javascript framework. Mootools is simply faster, smaller, and more modular (read: well written) than the competition.

I've heard opera's javascript interpreter was supposed to be fast. So, I just did a quick, totally non scientific (only one run, other minor activity in the background, etc) of a the slickspeed selector test, which tests various javascript libraries for their speed/accuracy. This was performed on Windows XP:

Opera (9.20/ build 8771)
246 : 3409 : 244 : 413 : 2518 : 329
Safari (3.0.3 / build 522.15.5)
322 : 1966 : 347 : 360 : 2488 : 519
Firefox (2.0.0.6) -- two times, second was with firebug enabled
397 : 10833 : 409 : 2569 : 14535 : 1100
423 : 14059 : 429 : 5188 : 14426 : 3352
ie (6.029)
4695 : 8536 : 3393 : 2379 : 17856 : 1890

Smaller numbers are faster, so opera is faster (in this test) than firefox. The toolkits, btw, are prototype, iQuery, mootools, ext, cssQuery, and dojoQuery).

what about mootools?

OpenAjax Alliance.

That said, I have no idea why this alliance is needed, even after reading most of their site. We already have Prototype, MooTools, jQuery and other great libraries. I'd be perfectly happy if Microsoft could just make IE fully support CSS instead of joining this buzzword-masturbating alliance...

var obj = new Object();
 
var obj2 = { };