JavaScript Toolkit V1.1.0 Released

First time accepted submitter Mensa Babe writes "Oliver Morgan, the original author of the JavaScript Toolkit, or just 'The Toolkit' as it is known in the JavaScript community, has just announced the release of the long awaited version 1.1.0, with better documentation and added function support. Quoting the project documentation: '[JavaScript] Toolkit offers a large number of integrated methods and utilities to help enrich the javascript object library. Javascript was built originally for browsers and as such lacks a large number of data utility methods with are seen in languages such as Python and Ruby. However times have changed and JavaScript is being used more and more in backend platforms. JS Toolkit aims to bridge that gap and provide everyone a modern developer needs to produce fast, secure and tidy code quick and easily.' The Toolkit fully supports ECMAScript 5 and runs on the most important virtual machines that we have today, including Node.JS, V8, Rhino, RingoJS, and many others. It continues to be actively developed."

Comments

The Toolkit?

[Mekabyte]

Since when is this known as "The Toolkit"? The lack of github followers and general references across the internet makes this claim suspect. Its History file only goes back a few days, so I wonder how this could possibly be "long-awaited."

Re:The Toolkit?

[outsider007]

You misunderstood. "The JavaScript Community" is the name of a Seattle-based indie band. Those four boys are very excited about this release.

Long awaited?

[Anonymous Coward]

has just announced the release of the long awaited version 1.1.0

My first thought was... by whom? The prior version, 1.0.0, was released on Aug 27, a week ago.

It continues to be actively developed.

By which we mean, he got back into it last month.

First time accepted submitter Mensa Babe...

Is an idiot.

Re:Long awaited?

[weezel]

Do you really want to be using a library from someone who thinks 'odd' means divisible by 3? Or that you'd need a library function for this? but hey at least he's got tests...

https://github.com/ollym/toolkit/commit/ede890a31eb1cad52d8f3bcd30e5c0afa8cc60e3

Re:Long awaited?

[Rizimar]

Oh, no. You read that correctly. 6 is now odd and even in the JavaScript Toolkit. This thing called "math" has been depreciated in favor of faster execution.

Underscore.js

[kingcool1432]

I admit I haven't heard of this before but a quick glance through the documentation reveals nothing that any CS student couldn't knock out with a couple days work. Compared to the excellent Underscore.js (http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/) this comes out as a damp squib. Am I missing something?

Re:feh, try phpjs

[jjohnson]

They have the vast majority of core PHP functions implemented in JavaScript.

I just threw up in my mouth.

A little clarity....

[Anonymous Coward]

I created the toolkit, I never spoke with this timothy and never asked for it to be published here? I'm not particularly happy with it being done either given that i've been working on it for several days and there is a load of issues which need fixing before I'd even want it considered let alone used in production.

So let me clarify.

- It's not based off any existing language or framework in particular. I'm taking what I find useful from the different ones available. The API is not set in stone yet there are still a number of large changes I still plan to make.

- I haven't and will never condone this as official in anyway. It's something I want to continue to use throughout MY projects and would find help/contribution helpful so i made it open-source. I have never come across Slashdot before - ever. And why on earth would I want to run a "PR campaign" for it anyway? I have much better things to do with my life.

- In short response to all your pointless negativity:
1) It's not long awaited - perhaps by me but I've never thought anyone else really cared.
2) It's never been known as "The Toolkit" I've never called it that so I don't know where the JS Community got the name from.
3) It has a handful of PHP functions, most of functions came from Ruby and Underscore.JS.
4) Every O-S project starts somewhere, U.JS had a humble beginning - so has mine. They are considerably different in their goals and current implementation. I strongly advise you know the difference before choosing or listening to the dismissive people in this thread.

And a final thanks to those of you who kindly took the time out of your day to come send me hate-mail.

Peace :) x

Re:A little clarity....

[ollymorgs]

Haha I can't believe how spiteful this place is. I don't understand why it's so impossible for you guys to just ignore something you think should be ignored. Or do you have to make sure that everyone who wants to make up their own mind should ignore it too.

Just incase you haven't got it already... I had a need for an ECMA5 targeted toolkit for my Node.JS development that provided all the useful goodness Ruby, Python and PHP had been given over the years which JS had never really had a need for (living mainly in the cave of the browser). A simple comparison:

Underscore.JS:
_.map([1,2,3], function(a, b) { return a * b });

JS Toolkit:
[1,2,3].map(function(a, b) { return a * b });

I didn't care about intruding the object namespace because ECMA5 introduced property descriptors which allowed me to make any extension methods non-enumerable and essentially no different to how other native methods were implemented. So with that in mind I created something that made more sense to me than underscore.js, as why should I have to use an underscore at all? Trust me if there were something that suited my needs I would have used and contributed to that instead.

I'm surprised it managed to find it's way here so quickly. It is still an immature project but perfectly useable with a few small bugs i'm working my hardest to iron out. It wasn't published by me so clearly there was someone who thought it worth showing to the world. I'm grateful to that person's support and I will do my best to see it through.

Re:A little clarity....

[cyber-vandal]

ollymorgs (2452542)

Looks like it. Seriously ollymorgs the internet is full of rude assholes, and this place is no different. No moaning about it is going to get any other result than more abuse.

Horray! Another library!

[narcc]

I was sad to discover that some code I'd recently written was perfectly readable and maintainable. I thought to myself "If people can easily understand and maintain this code, they'll think I'm some kind of n00b."

Thanks to judicious use of libraries like jquery and prototype.js, I'm happy to report that my code is both impossible to understand, difficult to extend, and an absolute nightmare to maintain. That's right, I'm now officially a "rock star" level programmer.

"The Toolkit" as us rock stars call it, now offers me the perfect opportunity to do away with those nasty simple library functions I've collected over the years. Things like string manipulation, for example, that were handled quickly and efficiently by a few simple easy-to-understand functions are now garbled up in yet another over-sized and bug ridden JS library.

My pages take longer to load and run slower than ever before! This is enterprise level code I'm pushing out here folks.

Here's a few hints to help you achieve the same level of greatness:

1) RAM is cheap, use as much as you can.

2) Forget about performance, if your code is too slow, upgrade. Computers get faster every year.

3) Arrays are for idiots who can't code. Import a collections framework for even the simplest of tasks. Need 10 integers to be manipulated by one function and then discarded? You can't go wrong with a thread safe hash table!

4) Load the library that has the function you want, even if you've already loaded a library with similar functionality. Like jquery's trim() function better than underscore.js? Import them both! Never mind that you only needed to use one function from each library or that any first-year CS student could write them in 10 minutes, you're a rock star. You use what you want.

5) Don't be afraid to re-invent the wheel. Other people are idiots, so assume that whatever you can hack together is automatically better. This especially applies to date and time functions.

So fellow rock stars (and future rock stars) ignore all of the negative comments in this discussion about "The Toolkit". Just because these n00b's can't comprehend its awesomeness dos not mean that it's not the perfect hammer for driving screws.

Re:You're not qualified.

[auLucifer]

Woah settle down cowboy. It's his project for his own work. If that is the worst bug you can find in his project then he's doing much better then a lot of code I've come across, even in major java frameworks.

What makes someone 'qualified' to write code for themselves? Does he need to drown in student debt? Spend years studying just to get there? Everyone started somewhere so get off your high horse and let the guy make his own mistakes.