Thread

Greg, largely agree, my only problem with coldfusion is it is expensive to implement,  there are few competent developers around so fees are high and finally lack of resources when compared to Apache/PHP

Good product, enterprise solution, but for everyday clients and hosting, probably not, well at least for us..

As for the templates have never used them, just build our own XHTML pages and insert tags where needed. I seriously doubt that anyone relying just on pre-build templates should be messing with Ajax implementations anyway.

Yes certainly agree about the control panel Ajax implementations but that as you say is a very different thread… 😊

Gosh, I’m not at all suggesting anyone use ColdFusion, at least not in that post.  I’m just urging caution in concluding that Spry will become Adobe’s standard, and offering up ColdFusion 8 as evidence of that.  Sorry that didn’t come across… 😊

... Most “designers” run a mile from coding by hand and DW’s ability to drag and drop pre made widgets in design view is going to mean we see a rash of overused effects appearing from the same type of “designers” who thought 3D jagged spinning logos were cool ...

“designers” ??

define please?!

Would you agree with: “designers” > “developers”
or would you agree with: “developers” > “designers”

<<I’m sorry. It kind of irks me when I come across a thread/title/blog/entry emphasizing one term over another. I’ve always defined ‘designer’ as totally different than ‘developer’, but that’s just me. I wish not to offend anyone.>>

OK happily… most people these days coming out of university in the UK with a Graphics design degree know absolutely no or very very little XHTML or CSS most are still taught table based WYSIWYG site creation. Yes they may be proficient in photoshop and DW but show them raw markup and they are completely lost, sad but true fact.

IMO amybody wishing to work in the web design industry be it creating front ends or back should know and be able to use at least XHTML rather than relying on the programme image slicing up a graphic for you. As to the Would you agree with: “designers” > “developers”
or would you agree with: “developers” > “designers”

I could not comment as I really do not understand the point…

The spinning 3D graphic comment was a dig I am afraid at those people producing some of the appalling colour matches, stwinkling star backgrounds etc etc. that are still out there and seem to be so popular on MySpace. Trouble is I have seen people offering to make sites and charge for it.

What price W3C and accesibility?

Anyway rant over will retire to obscurity again…..

Just so we don’t lose sight of the thread here: Scriptaculous or Mootols?

Im looking to learn one of these, but I want to pick the right one, is there any decision by Rick and co. on which framework they are going to integrate into EE 2.0?

Let’s try to keep it on track.
😊
I still vote jQuery.

Yep,
jQuery all the way. Its so small and simple to use, yet powerful. And the community there is very much like here, relaxed but helpful.

jQuery is great.

I hated javascript before I was forced into using it for an upcoming project, and (largely because of jQuery), I’ve been converted.

Happily using scriptaculous here. I almost feel bad for myself reading this thread 😊

In my opinion, MooTools still needs some maturity with it’s community to be a competitor.  It’s definitely got traction, but the documentation and community aren’t quite as warm as jQuery.

I’ve not used any of these libraries, just taken a curiosity look so not sure if this is relevent or not…
——-
As we move into the truely mobile web…iPhone is just the real beginning…we’ll be dealing with slower networks (cell). It will probably be quite a while before they become as speedy as most of our landline broadband connections so we’ll again have to be cognizant of page sizes and load times. These new devices have full browsers so Mobi and mobile coding and special pages/sites are probably dead.
Apple released their guidelines for developing iPhone compatible websites and one of their recommendations is stripping down your javascript to what’s absolutely used/needed on a page-by-page basis.

How’s that square with these libraries?

Another vote for jQuery here 😊

mootools definitly mootools. Its light modular and fast (see the speed test comparision with other frameworks).
But it requires a litle more study then jquery or other libs.
The way you notice that mootools is very good is that the new release of prototype took over allot of features from mootools Example : new Elemement();

EE + and moo is the best match ill prove it with some new websites later this week… 😊

jQuery.

The kicker making the choice for me is that Karl lives 2 miles away from me, and the new book is fabulous.

I’ve not used any of these libraries, just taken a curiosity look so not sure if this is relevent or not…
——-
As we move into the truely mobile web…iPhone is just the real beginning…we’ll be dealing with slower networks (cell). It will probably be quite a while before they become as speedy as most of our landline broadband connections so we’ll again have to be cognizant of page sizes and load times. These new devices have full browsers so Mobi and mobile coding and special pages/sites are probably dead.
Apple released their guidelines for developing iPhone compatible websites and one of their recommendations is stripping down your javascript to what’s absolutely used/needed on a page-by-page basis.

How’s that square with these libraries?

To reply to this question the iphone version of the .mac gallery has been made by using mootools if that doesnt prove it then i dont know :p
Here’s the link 😊 http://gallery.mac.com/emily_parker

That’s pretty nifty. I know the public site, non-iphone web browser site, has sproutit’s “sproutcore” under the hood.