Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Adding jQuery To Visual Studio
Tim Anderson writes "Microsoft's Scott Guthrie, Corporate VP of the .NET developer division, announced that the open source jQuery Javascript library will be integrated into Visual Studio, the main Windows development tool. Further, Microsoft will treat jQuery as a supported product within technical support contracts, and will use jQuery to build new controls for ASP.NET, its web platform."
If this sounds familiar to you it's probably because we already talked about it.
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/29/0249226&from=rss
It's a week ago, though, and this doesn't include Nokia, so I can see how you'd get confused.
Anyone that has used VisualStudio or any of MS programming options will cringe at MS definition of "integrate".
Uh, care to elaborate on that? I've used VS before and I've actually found their integration of technologies (SOAP for example) to be quite nice. VS is one of the few MS products that hasn't turned into a completely piece of shit over the years....but I'll still take Eclipse over it any day.
If nothing else comes from this, hopefully Microsoft will help to fix the outstanding Internet Explorer bugs. Congratulations again to the jQuery team, keep up the great work.
The studio itself is fine. I don't think its built with a bunch of different technologies. Its basically C++. But the products it creates are patched together with all sorts of things. They give you sort of, "widgets" that you just drag in. They try to abstract whether the widget was made in visual C++, C#, Visual Basic, etc. But in the end, it can be important to understand what these things are.
You can make some really nasty quick and dirty stuff in Visual Studio. Sure if you are out to make solid code you can do that as well. But it can get frustrating as you have to keep smacking down the widget approach.
As an engineer I was always taught, "test twice, release once" which was the IT version of "measure twice, cut once". Slashdot has taught me the error of my ways.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I think you know Step 3.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Fearful of the power of Slashdot, Microsoft also announced the release of .net® auto-dupe(TM) support to Visual Studio. From now on anything you publish will have a random chance to be published again a few days later.
This feature is expected to solve the widespread problem of users not wanting to use a first release for fear of bugs. Now they'll see a second release and plunge in! An ASP.net(TM) version will be forthcoming with the next service pack, allowing your website to fill its content needs by duplicating random articles.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Heard this last week and thought it was a joke. You mean I can refer clients to Microsoft for support on an open source javascript library?
One big thing about jQuery is how well it works cross-browser. While some of the plug ins can be browser specific, I have rarely had issues deploying it across all browsers. But I just can't see MS supporting a cludgy issue with anything but IE.
M
You realize that asp.net controls can USE a library without the library itself being extended, right?
So what? This "story" on Slashdot's front page doesn't even bother to identify what "jQuery" is. All it does is make a press release pimping jQuery, "now with Microsoft's support!".
--
make install -not war
Folks, lemme tell you whatever you remember from learning javascript is largely irrelevant, especially memorizing and learning to 'read' all those ugly syntactical structures of text. In a word, jQuery is 'efficient'. Also, you know all those ajax modal & pop-up windows you see on 'web 2.0' sites, with the soft rounded corners. That's probably jQuery, more likely than not, and it is *easy* to code for, across browser. If you've avoided learning Ajax, you were smart to wait for jQuery.
Yes.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
No kidding. Ever look at how AJAX is handled on .net sites created in VS? javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$cphMain$lnkTotalDnsManager','')
Talk about maintainable!
I have to give credit where credit is due - master pages are pretty damn handy, but the rest of what I've worked with in VS seems like a bunch of cobbled-together nonsense produced by people who failed their programming classes with the goal of creating the slowest IDE in the history of the known universe.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I assume this is a deliberate troll because nobody could actually be that stupid. After all, you don't need to google jquery to see you have it completely backwards, it only requires reading the summary.
In short: jQuery is not Microsoft's ripoff of anything, and they are not open sourcing it. It already WAS open source (dual MIT/GPL licensed), and it wasn't written by them. It was created by John Resig who now works for Mozilla.
So far from being the latest example of MS's "Not Invented Here" problem, it's actually a suggestion that they may be overcoming NIH. And when you say "They could have joined the existing communities and worked with them" - that's what they did.
If you really must come out with a standard-issue anti-MS troll, I believe the "they'll embrace, extend, extinguish it, just you wait and see" one is the correct one to use in this situation.
Oh, and as for Prototype/scriptaculous doing it better... *shrug* well I prefer jQuery but it's obviously a matter of opinion to some extent, so if you found you prefered them (or mootools, or YUI, or whatever), fair enough. That said, your given justification is off target, jQuery has a plugin system so if you don't want a bunch of UI level stuff but just the "lower-layer stuff", that works too. Admittedly the distinction of what is lower layer and what is plugin may be slightly different between projects, and jquery core does include some animation related stuff, but still, you can't realistically imply jquery is monolithically bloated.
*sigh* I guess I shouldn't feed the trolls.
WTF. jQuery is OPEN SOURCE, for gods' sake. I do my Microsoft bashing every day, and I'm a pretty good free software geek, but your post here is nonsense.
This is just one more in a long line of examples of Microsoft's "Not Invented Here" attitude problem. They could have joined the existing communities and worked with them. Open sourcing jQuery will not fix the problem -- the open source community still hates Microsoft's guts for exactly this type of behavior.
"You speak of what you know not, O trollish one."
jQuery was not written by Microsoft. It has been used by many web pages/applications before this announcement.
jQuery was written by John Resig, who currently works for the Mozilla Corporation.
J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
parent comment is so far off base its not even funny. If you RTFA then you'd realise that:
1. jQuery is not an MS product, and has not being bought by MS.
2. jQuery is an open source product that they have no control over. They've explicitly stated they will not fork from the main trunk.
3. The reason this is news is that it is going against the track record of "Not Invented Here"
But why let reality get in the way of being able to put down MS (surprised you resisted the temptation to use a $)!
Because the jQuery maintainers are going to happily incorporate Windows-only modifications made by Microsoft to the library, correct?
Because "we'll be shipping jQuery as-is, and submit patches to it like everyone else" means something weird and wacky you must have deduced ahead of us. Correct?
Actually I'm at a loss here. Could you enlighten us as to how these evil tricksies will take place.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Um, pretty obvious that you really have no idea what you're talking about. jQuery was not created by Microsoft. Nor was it even funded by Microsoft to begin with (and probably won't be in the future). jQuery is already opensource (seeing as how it's openly available from the jQuery site).
Secondly, I see you must be operating under the delusion that "bigger is better" - jQuery has a MUCH smaller footprint than Prototype (and, therefore, Scriptaculous. I haven't worked with either Scriptaculous or Prototype, but just from my brief glance-over, jQuery does both of their jobs.
Personally, even though you have the layering option w/ Prototype/Scriptaculous, I'd rather just have both and still have a smaller footprint.
Step 3: Mess it up?
Do not trust this signature.
Aww come on, "Troll"? That is a really miserably failed attempt at humour I did there.
I wish comedy writers could tag their comments with a different color so it is not interpreted as serious information. Totally kills the joke if people start to believe that you ARE stupid enough to mean it. ;)
Do not trust this signature.
Have you ever even learned jQuery?
Have you ever read the project founder's book? It's not from Microsoft Press.
As an open source JavaScript developer I hate IE and Microsoft just as much as the next guy. But if you're going to bash Microsoft, please keep to the facts.
Yes!
Plain ASP.NET is not a framework made for modern web development.
AJAX in ASP.NET is not really asynchronous either. As the stupid viewstate needs to be maintained between postbacks.
I really doubt that this is a case where extend and extinguish is really viable or intended. Its not like jquery is some fundamental piece of open source that it's destruction would advance ms in any way, as you note there are tons of other similar active great projects.
If they wanted to extinguish it then I doubt they would make it such a core piece of Visual Studio. It sounds to me like they finally realized how retarded visual studio was compared to what was freely available and decided to just integrate with a good existing project. If anything I think that in this specific area they plan on working with the community in a positive way.
so at worse I think we will see some unpleasant branching or the addition of some lame IE specific code. Its a rare case where one can say kudos MS! They integrated with a good project for the right reasons.
Just had to quote this so I can read it again later when I'm ready for some comedic relief.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
I'm glad I'm not the only one that was pissed to find out that the viewstate is still getting passed around with ASP.NET AJAX. I understand why they did it, but it's annoying and pointless. If you want to write a lean web application in ASP.NET you have to throw out all of MS's web controls and code straight HTML and http handlers.
Hell is other people's code.
Step 3: Mess it up?
I was going to say "Profit!", but we all know that has to be preceded by "???", so maybe that is Step 3.
Clicked pie.
Actually, that isn't so bad... with the ASP.Net MVC, the Dynamic Data, and Jayrock, you have about all you need, in a set of libraries that aren't a total pain to work with. I love what Jayrock adds to HttpHandler myself.
.Net itself more than most other languages/platforms as well. I just wish that MS stopped trying to over-engineer everything for the enterprise developer. That's my biggest gripe with the Java frameworks out there. Yeah, you can whip up a decent web application in no time at all with the ASP.Net controls stack, but when you want (or need) to scale out it falls apart. ASP.Net AJAX doesn't scale at all, and is hampered by its' own weight. Anthem and other similar frameworks worked better in a similar fashion, and Jayrock separates things out, and scales far better.
I love master pages, as the way they work is above and beyond what most other template systems offer. I like C# and
Silverlight sometimes seems like a solution waiting for a problem, but it's cool, and at least will scale with client growth. Silverlight + Dynamic Data (Astoria) is awesome, if limited to those with Silverlight/Moonlight installed. I don't know where development is going in the next couple years. I just hope that it doesn't all fall down.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
I am one of the developers working on javascript support in VS. I am working very closely with jquery support. Our goal is to get as many developers as possible using our tools. That means supporting libraries that web developers want to use.
People are nervous because we seen this pattern before on a non-open source (at the time) language/library. It went like this:
1. Incorporate JQuery into visual studio and add windows specific code to "enhance the productivity within visual studio".
2. Books and MSDN will refer to the Microsoft extensions as cool ways to get thing done in JQuery, and people new to the software will gravitate to the Microsoft version, colleges will teach it (most colleges use Windows in their labs), and since most people use windows anyway they see no harm in adopting the extended edition.
3. Continue to refer the extended version as JQuery, causing confusion between the Microsoft version and the official version.
4. JQuery loses enough share to the Microsoft version to cause some grief to the non-microsoft developers. Especially since a lot of enterprises are sold on the Microsoft method of IT, and would like their developers to take advantage of the Microsoft technology.
5. By the time damage is done and JQuery complains, Microsoft will rename their version JQ++
6. Eventually Microsoft will abandon JQ++ and move all new development to Query.net.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Your first point invalidates the remainder, since this is a JavaScript library. What exactly "Windows-specific" do you figure Microsoft will introduce into jQuery? There's already a ton of code to deal with IE's shortcomings, so that doesn't count.
Besides, assuming for just a minute that your scenario is correct, the net result is that a bunch of Microsoft developers are better off and everyone else who uses jQuery is no worse for it. Nobody wins, nobody loses.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Is there any similar effort toward building eclipse/netbeans/??? IDE's for jquery?
Dude, I was just pointing out WHY people are nervous, and used Microsoft's handling of Java as a template to illustrate a point.
Not worrying about Microsoft's extension to a competitor product, is like not worrying about a certain one glove singer from the 80's babysitting. They both have a history that warrants a skeptical look on their intentions...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Excuse me while I go hang myself, moron.
Care to elaborate on how asp.net doesn't scale? There are number of very high traffic sites, MySpace.com for example, that use asp.net. Truth is, asp.net is one of the most performant and easy to use stacks there are. It's main drawback if licensing costs for win2k3 servers.
Depends how the app is designed. If you code well, it's not really that big of an issue (like most languages/frameworks, just throw more hardware at it and the load balancer should figure most of it out). Most .NET-based code/apps I've seen tend to be... unusual, and very often in ways that seriously harm scalability.
If you're writing a system that requires multiple servers, chances are that Win2k3 licensing costs are the least of your worries. It's not insignificant, but it's probably a pittance compared to the developers' salaries.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
erm... that reply wasn't me.
I don't agree that non-open-source software is evil.
I do believe that creating value for others is good. I also believe that I deserve a share of the value I create as a reward.
I respect your right to give away all of the value that you create. However, that does not compel me to do the same.
That seems like a hell of a lot of work to actually do, considering MS already has a pretty good AJAX library thats well integrated into the development platform.
So you're waiting for the rapture, when you'll hunt down and execute all "M$" employees and collaborators? *snort*
Did you really lose your job twitter? You seem angrier and angrier lately. Certainly missing that singsong voice of yours.
Or are you just increasingly frustrated because you finally managed to ruin the last of your 14 accounts and can't troll Slashdot effectively anymore? Maybe it's time for a new tactic. Shilling your comments in AC mode might work. Or then again it might not.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
As a stage crew worker, I take offence to that.
A hammer and duct tape integrate things much better than Microsoft does.
Disregard the above.
I really doubt that this is a case where extend and extinguish is really viable or intended
No, nor do I. That line was supposed to be sort dryly sarcastic. Point being, at least that copy/paste troll / knee-jerk slashbot-ism would make some basic sort of "plausible" sense given the situation, even if I don't personally think it an argument worth any real weight in practice.
Well, if you nuke .Net sessions, and view-state you can get a lot more performance out of a single server... The more servers you use, the harder it is to maintain a release cycle, and make *SURE* they all match up. Win2k3 licensing really isn't that bad. The web edition works well, and to be honest I am not talking about cost so much, as maintaining a site with several million users on a default ASP.Net stack. Any big site that uses .Net is *NOT* using the default controls, or ASP.Net AJAX. Most are avoiding the use of built in sessions (requiring sticky session context from the load balancer). Also, while viewstate can be nice for some things, it doesn't work well when you are trying to do anything AJAX-y, as sending a few K of data for something that should be *fast* doesn't work so well. Rebuilding a page's context object for something that should be a fast client-server request doesn't work so well either. Aside from the fact that the increased network traffic slows things down.
.Net for a well done, scalable, fast site. Just not by using the typical development pattern for ASP.Net and MS's AJAX. ASP.Net 4's system for AJAX handling looks like it will work much, much better though.
Those are just two of my gripes. You can use
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
That's because heavyweight ASP.NET AJAX components were probably written for maximum ease of transition of developers coming from non web backgrounds, especially enterprise developers, who don't want to get their hands dirty with javascript and such. It's easy, well abstracted, but it comes at a cost.
If you just use client side library and web service call wrapper, it's much more lightweight.
The rest of the stuff, even UpdatePanel, can also be lightweight if used judiciously.
In general, given the nature of your post, I have to add that most people can use simple tool... if, however, I can use complex tool efficiently and someone else cannot and blames the tool, I would say, as we do in Russian, that he has "hands growing out of the wrong place". Which is why, it might turn out, he cannot afford a computer mid-end enough to run VS with decent speed :>