i am not 100% sure if this is answered before but i could not find anything like it.
i have started to learn mootools as part of university course, i am really liken it.
i seen the intro to jquery from Chris and (i think) jquery may be much more flexible than mootools
well, my question is, should i stick with mootools or is jquery better.
Tbh – I know nothing of mootools but the name, but being a completely bias jQuery fan, I am going to shout jQuery very loudly and call mootools something rude… it might also make this forum feel a little like the rest of the Internet… lol
So yea I use jQuery, the power is awesome, and yes its very flexible :)
Same here. I’ve been using jQuery for quite some time now, and for me there hasn’t been a reason yet to switch framework – I guess that’s a positive something :) You might also want to have a look at this link:
It’s a performance test with all the major libraries.
I like jQuery, but I’m the first to admit it’s just because that’s what I happen to learn first and so I just stick with it. Does everything I need it to do. I know some folks seem to like the wording and syntax of MooTools better, like it’s more like "real programming" (or something), but the jQuery syntax really seems to make sense to me. What with the chaining and whatnot.
I was originally a programmer who has ventured (every so slightly) into the design realm and I like jQuery better. I actually used MooTools before I tried jQuery; the only reason I tried jQuery was because I wasn’t happy with MooTools.
Regardless of which has the better syntax, I think jQuery has more and better plugins (unless there’s a whole horde of MooTools plugins I’m unaware of); if you’re just looking for the DOM manipulation stuff, this won’t matter, but after a while you’ll give in to the flashy effects :)
:D Same here. I used to build a lot of DOM manipulation stuff ‘by hand’ !!! That was when I didn’t know that there were such things as libraries.. Oh my god did that save a lot of time. jQuery syntax is fine with me, but I can’t say I tried mootools.
(Hi SVGRob, fancy meeting you here – and you Meshach!)
Y’all should read this article:
I think the general gist of the argument is this:
General: fast to implement, vast community and support – but possibly a bit tricky to extend unless you’re a blackbelt in JS. Not so great at effects. Degrades gracefully.
Pros: Fast, easy, great DOM selector.
Cons: Stops you learning pure JS.
General: OOP JS framework, great at visual effects, extends native JS model (and therefore does NOT work with other libraries). Modifies JS to take the crap bits out to make it more elegant.
Pros: "Pure", great effects – a coder’s JS library
Cons: Incompatible with other libraries, community not as large as jQuery.
Personally, if the project isn’t critical, I’d rather learn JS the hard way, and Mootools seems to offer a halfway house where you aren’t learning a sub-dialect, in fact it’ll teach you OO JS. Perhaps if you’re a student, you should focus on MT since it provides you with a more thorough theoretical underpinning – but then again, it depends how applicable this knowledge will be in your career. Me, I’m just finnicky about things like that – I like the hard route.
Sizzle is another interesting development from the jQuery camp – anyone taken it for a spin?
I’ve never a read a more biased article anywhere on the internetz – but at least the guy did ‘fess up to being one of the Mootools developers. If you read enough of the comments, most of the points he makes actually turn out to be moot – you can do the Mootools way in jQuery if you prefer and vice-versa.
As far as the "real programmers use Mootols" arguments, I’m not trying to come up with the next "Facebook" or anything – I just want my websites to be pretty, functional, meet business needs and be reasonably light on bandwidth.
The most serious limitation of Mootools is that it doesn’t play well with other libraries. jQuery, Prototype, YUI, Ext can pretty much all be made to work on the same site – the same is not true of Mootools. Their defence is that you "shouldn’t need to have more than one library that does pretty much the same thing". Unfortunately, the reality is that you might be designing a site that needs some great functionality in it. You find a great jQuery plugin for one part and a great Prototype plugin for another part. This is not an issue, within half an hour you can be up and running.
As I understand it, the "Mootools way" would be to either find Mootools plugins that do the same thing, or rewrite the functionality from scratch using Mootools – which could be costly in terms of time and resources. It is this limitation that has made me stay away from Mootools thus far.
I read a similar article this week actually, claiming that ‘real programmers’ don’t use PHP. The sad thing is that at one time I might have agreed with this statement – I once wrote software and device drivers at HP – but these days I’m very much a "whatever gets the job done" kind of guy.
Don’t worry about the current trends, for some things stay constant. It is, and always has been, the case that "real programmers" don’t eat quiche.
Sure, it’s very biased (the author wrote the Mootools manual…)
Sure, in a development environment, sometimes you just need to hack something together using plugins – but that underlines a distinction between programming as a discipline and web "development" as a practice. From an academic perspective, I think it’s worthwhile taking the time to learn a lib like MT.
Well this is an interesting discussion/argument that I didn’t even know existed.
I think this is in keeping with davegonebananas post – I wouldn’t use Mootools unless
a) it was exclusive of any other plugins/libs owing to how it’s implemented
b) it was purely out of academic interest
c) I was a blackbelt in JS and could use MT to generate all required JS functionality
At the moment, I am only able to tick option b – and rely on my own JS skillz combined with the odd bit of jQuery etc. Still, I personally am very interested to study MT simply because of the implications it will have for my comprehension of JS, and it gives me a nerdgasm.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
*May or may not contain any actual "CSS" or "Tricks".