slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

Tim Taplin
Looking for some basic thoughts about which library to use for ajax  
and related javascript programming. Is there anything about either  
one of these that allows it to place more nicely with Lasso? I've  
noticed a quite a few Lasso programmers using jQuery but haven't  
noticed any specific reason for that choice being mentioned. I've  
used prototypejs and enjoy the documentation and had success using it  
with Lasso.

I need to make a long term choice for a project and am curious why  
others have made their choices. What do you use and why?


Thanks in advance.


Tim Taplin


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

Bil Corry-3
Tim Taplin wrote on 8/4/2008 9:15 AM:
> Looking for some basic thoughts about which library to use for ajax and
> related javascript programming. Is there anything about either one of
> these that allows it to place more nicely with Lasso? I've noticed a
> quite a few Lasso programmers using jQuery but haven't noticed any
> specific reason for that choice being mentioned. I've used prototypejs
> and enjoy the documentation and had success using it with Lasso.

You can use any JavaScript library you want with Lasso, none have an advantage as far as Lasso is concerned.  As to which one to use, try them all and see which one you prefer since you're the one that has to code with it.  Some things to consider: coding style, speed, library size, features, community, and documentation.


- Bil



--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

Lars A. Gundersen-2
In reply to this post by Tim Taplin
Either one works fine with Lasso, and the reason you haven't seen any  
hard reasons is probably exactly that.
Personally I use jQuery, but it was more a matter of me 'getting it'  
quicker than any of the others, in terms of its fundamenal way of  
working. YMMV. If you already know Prototype that is an excellent  
reason to use that.

As an aside, I was pretty amazed today on finding out I could do an  
AJAX call in jQuery, loading the contents of a text file into a div on  
a webpage, in one line of jQuery code. One frikkin' line where I  
before would have used 10 or 20 of 'native' JS code, and maybe a Lasso  
backend page as well. Glad I took the time to learn AJAX the plain ol'  
JS way, but time to go jQuery AJAX, methinks.

Lars

Den 4. aug.. 2008 kl. 16.15 skrev Tim Taplin:

> Looking for some basic thoughts about which library to use for ajax  
> and related javascript programming. Is there anything about either  
> one of these that allows it to place more nicely with Lasso? I've  
> noticed a quite a few Lasso programmers using jQuery but haven't  
> noticed any specific reason for that choice being mentioned. I've  
> used prototypejs and enjoy the documentation and had success using  
> it with Lasso.
>
> I need to make a long term choice for a project and am curious why  
> others have made their choices. What do you use and why?
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> Tim Taplin
>
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>
>

--
Lars A. Gundersen
http://www.larsagundersen.no/ • +47 91 64 46 10


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

jasonhuck
Yes, use whatever works for you, best tool for the job, if all you've
got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, blah blah yadda
yadda...BUT:

jQuery will spoil you. There's almost no learning curve if you know a
little CSS and a thing or two in general about JavaScript. It's
lightweight but powerful, easy to extend, has a great, active, helpful
community, good documentation, and a lot of momentum behind it. Once
you get hooked, the other libraries seem ridiculously verbose and
needlessly complicated by comparison.

My two cents.

- jason




On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Lars A. Gundersen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Either one works fine with Lasso, and the reason you haven't seen any hard
> reasons is probably exactly that.
> Personally I use jQuery, but it was more a matter of me 'getting it' quicker
> than any of the others, in terms of its fundamenal way of working. YMMV. If
> you already know Prototype that is an excellent reason to use that.
>
> As an aside, I was pretty amazed today on finding out I could do an AJAX
> call in jQuery, loading the contents of a text file into a div on a webpage,
> in one line of jQuery code. One frikkin' line where I before would have used
> 10 or 20 of 'native' JS code, and maybe a Lasso backend page as well. Glad I
> took the time to learn AJAX the plain ol' JS way, but time to go jQuery
> AJAX, methinks.
>
> Lars
>
> Den 4. aug.. 2008 kl. 16.15 skrev Tim Taplin:
>
>> Looking for some basic thoughts about which library to use for ajax and
>> related javascript programming. Is there anything about either one of these
>> that allows it to place more nicely with Lasso? I've noticed a quite a few
>> Lasso programmers using jQuery but haven't noticed any specific reason for
>> that choice being mentioned. I've used prototypejs and enjoy the
>> documentation and had success using it with Lasso.
>>
>> I need to make a long term choice for a project and am curious why others
>> have made their choices. What do you use and why?
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>>
>> Tim Taplin
>>
>>
>> --
>> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>
>>
>
> --
> Lars A. Gundersen
> http://www.larsagundersen.no/ • +47 91 64 46 10
>
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>
>



--
tagSwap.net :: Open Source Lasso Code
<http://tagSwap.net/>

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

Marc Pope
Is there any good on-line resources or books for jQuery for people who  
don't know javascript? Generally I learn best by short examples. I  
started into it and quickly found that I didn't understand how to do  
things and got frustrated.

Marc




On Aug 4, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Jason Huck wrote:

> Yes, use whatever works for you, best tool for the job, if all you've
> got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, blah blah yadda
> yadda...BUT:
>
> jQuery will spoil you. There's almost no learning curve if you know a
> little CSS and a thing or two in general about JavaScript. It's
> lightweight but powerful, easy to extend, has a great, active, helpful
> community, good documentation, and a lot of momentum behind it. Once
> you get hooked, the other libraries seem ridiculously verbose and
> needlessly complicated by comparison.
>
> My two cents.
>
> - jason
>
>


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

Jolle Carlestam-2
I'm very fond of Jquery in action by Bear Bibehault and Yehuda Katz.

HDB
Jolle

4 aug 2008 kl. 18.49 skrev Marc Pope:

>
> Is there any good on-line resources or books for jQuery for people who
> don't know javascript? Generally I learn best by short examples. I
> started into it and quickly found that I didn't understand how to do
> things and got frustrated.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Jason Huck wrote:
>
>> Yes, use whatever works for you, best tool for the job, if all you've
>> got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, blah blah yadda
>> yadda...BUT:
>>
>> jQuery will spoil you. There's almost no learning curve if you know a
>> little CSS and a thing or two in general about JavaScript. It's
>> lightweight but powerful, easy to extend, has a great, active,  
>> helpful
>> community, good documentation, and a lot of momentum behind it. Once
>> you get hooked, the other libraries seem ridiculously verbose and
>> needlessly complicated by comparison.
>>
>> My two cents.
>>
>> - jason
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

jasonhuck
In reply to this post by Marc Pope
Sure.

Here are two tutorial sites:
http://www.learningjquery.com/
http://www.jqueryfordesigners.com/

This is a nice 3rd party implementation of the API reference:
http://remysharp.com/visual-jquery/

The official documentation includes a section for tutorials:
http://docs.jquery.com/Tutorials

My Lasso Summit presentation from last year includes an introduction
to jQuery as well:
http://www.corefive.com/Lasso_and_jQuery/

The jQuery Mailing List is very active and helpful as well:
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en/topics?gvc=2


HTH,
Jason




On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Marc Pope <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Is there any good on-line resources or books for jQuery for people who don't
> know javascript? Generally I learn best by short examples. I started into it
> and quickly found that I didn't understand how to do things and got
> frustrated.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Jason Huck wrote:
>
>> Yes, use whatever works for you, best tool for the job, if all you've
>> got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, blah blah yadda
>> yadda...BUT:
>>
>> jQuery will spoil you. There's almost no learning curve if you know a
>> little CSS and a thing or two in general about JavaScript. It's
>> lightweight but powerful, easy to extend, has a great, active, helpful
>> community, good documentation, and a lot of momentum behind it. Once
>> you get hooked, the other libraries seem ridiculously verbose and
>> needlessly complicated by comparison.
>>
>> My two cents.
>>
>> - jason
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>
>



--
tagSwap.net :: Open Source Lasso Code
<http://tagSwap.net/>

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

decorior
In reply to this post by Marc Pope
Hi,

We have used prototype since jQuery was even created and found it to  
be very robust. jQuery has more support in the Lasso community, but  
both seem to do well.

As Jason pointed out, jQuery used to be less verbose, but prototype's  
latest release has tightened that up.

However, we actually found some of the compact js can be difficult to  
read (e.g. chaining) unless the documentation is good or you are the  
author ;-)

my cent :-)

Deco



--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

Brian Loomis-3
In reply to this post by Marc Pope
I bought the learning jQUery PDF and it was great.

Brian

On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Marc Pope wrote:

> Is there any good on-line resources or books for jQuery for people  
> who don't know javascript? Generally I learn best by short examples.  
> I started into it and quickly found that I didn't understand how to  
> do things and got frustrated.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Jason Huck wrote:
>
>> Yes, use whatever works for you, best tool for the job, if all you've
>> got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, blah blah yadda
>> yadda...BUT:
>>
>> jQuery will spoil you. There's almost no learning curve if you know a
>> little CSS and a thing or two in general about JavaScript. It's
>> lightweight but powerful, easy to extend, has a great, active,  
>> helpful
>> community, good documentation, and a lot of momentum behind it. Once
>> you get hooked, the other libraries seem ridiculously verbose and
>> needlessly complicated by comparison.
>>
>> My two cents.
>>
>> - jason
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>

Brian Loomis
http://www.virtualrelations.us
(208) 562-3944


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

jasonhuck
In reply to this post by decorior
> As Jason pointed out, jQuery used to be less verbose, but prototype's latest
> release has tightened that up.

Yes, recent versions of Prototype and MooTools have both borrowed
liberally from concepts first pioneered and/or made popular by
jQuery.*  :D

- jason


* (a practice that's actually encouraged, and sometimes reciprocated,
by the developers, so not really a bad thing.)


--
tagSwap.net :: Open Source Lasso Code
<http://tagSwap.net/>

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

Marc Pope
In reply to this post by jasonhuck
Jason, your presentation at last year's summit gave me the will to  
learn and was the highlight of my trip, but once I got into it, it  
seemed harder. In my spare time, which is very minimal, I am trying to  
get a better grasp of it.

Thanks for those links, I think jQuery for Designers is a good place  
to start.

Marc


On Aug 4, 2008, at 1:00 PM, Jason Huck wrote:

>
> My Lasso Summit presentation from last year includes an introduction
> to jQuery as well:
> http://www.corefive.com/Lasso_and_jQuery/


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

decorior
In reply to this post by jasonhuck
Which we should certainly encourage more of in tagswap :-)

I think ALL the libraries have borrowed liberally from each other to  
be honest, which makes it easier to migrate.

Deco
On Aug 4, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Jason Huck wrote:

>> As Jason pointed out, jQuery used to be less verbose, but  
>> prototype's latest
>> release has tightened that up.
>
> Yes, recent versions of Prototype and MooTools have both borrowed
> liberally from concepts first pioneered and/or made popular by
> jQuery.*  :D
>
> - jason
>
>
> * (a practice that's actually encouraged, and sometimes reciprocated,
> by the developers, so not really a bad thing.)
>
>
> --
> tagSwap.net :: Open Source Lasso Code
> <http://tagSwap.net/>
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

Tim Taplin
In reply to this post by decorior
Glad to see all the response on this. Thanks for you guys input.  I  
have been trying to remember why I chose Prototypejs in the first  
place and now remember discussions with Deco back then when as you  
point out, jQuery didn't exist and we were writing AJAX handlers by  
hand.

I've found Prototype to be well documented (i've never had the need  
to mail the support list, but it seems to have good questions and  
answers.) and logical to use. As I've built increasingly complex  
sites combining AJAX  with Lasso , I'm rarely stumped with the  
methods to accomplish  a task, just sometimes working out the logic  
so that javascript and Lasso can talk to each other.

Looking forward to more thoughts.

Tim Taplin
On Aug 4, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Deco Rior wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We have used prototype since jQuery was even created and found it  
> to be very robust. jQuery has more support in the Lasso community,  
> but both seem to do well.
>
> As Jason pointed out, jQuery used to be less verbose, but  
> prototype's latest release has tightened that up.
>
> However, we actually found some of the compact js can be difficult  
> to read (e.g. chaining) unless the documentation is good or you are  
> the author ;-)
>
> my cent :-)
>
> Deco
>
>
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

decorior
Hi, Tim:

I think our challenges over the last couple of years have been to:

1). Keep up to date with the prototype and scripto changes to make our  
code prettier!
2). To try to find a best practice for developing ajax solutions.
3). To try to find a good testing environment.

The main change we have implemented over the last year has been to use  
$$ much more frequently than before.

I can pretty much tell you that every page we develop has AJAX on it.

As far as the two talking together, we have used all the major  
suspects. In the end this has proven to be quite simple.

Going forward, I would like to see both the libraries you mention have  
some of the widgets in YUI or extJS. While I can get every one of  
these as plugins, none of them are part of the core development.

Lastly, this new charting came out for prototype the other day.

http://blog.deensoft.com/2008/07/28/protochart-prototype-canvas-pretty-charts/

Deco



On Aug 4, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Tim Taplin wrote:

> Glad to see all the response on this. Thanks for you guys input.  I  
> have been trying to remember why I chose Prototypejs in the first  
> place and now remember discussions with Deco back then when as you  
> point out, jQuery didn't exist and we were writing AJAX handlers by  
> hand.
>
> I've found Prototype to be well documented (i've never had the need  
> to mail the support list, but it seems to have good questions and  
> answers.) and logical to use. As I've built increasingly complex  
> sites combining AJAX  with Lasso , I'm rarely stumped with the  
> methods to accomplish  a task, just sometimes working out the logic  
> so that javascript and Lasso can talk to each other.
>
> Looking forward to more thoughts.
>
> Tim Taplin
> On Aug 4, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Deco Rior wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have used prototype since jQuery was even created and found it  
>> to be very robust. jQuery has more support in the Lasso community,  
>> but both seem to do well.
>>
>> As Jason pointed out, jQuery used to be less verbose, but  
>> prototype's latest release has tightened that up.
>>
>> However, we actually found some of the compact js can be difficult  
>> to read (e.g. chaining) unless the documentation is good or you are  
>> the author ;-)
>>
>> my cent :-)
>>
>> Deco
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>
>
>
> --
> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>




--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

Stanley Weber
In reply to this post by Tim Taplin
I have enjoyed this thread. I am almost clueless regarding
javascript, but have been able to use several pieces of jQuery code.

For me the problem is being unable to read javascript. I learned
Fortran and then Pascal back in the old days, so my mind only works
linearly. Lasso bracket code makes sense, the newer <?LassoScript ...
?>, not at all.

I think JQuery needs more and better examples, especially those of us
javascript challenged, but because not many lines of code need to be
written or modified to do something, the brute force method of trying
and re-trying how to write something has worked for me.

Stan

At 2:04 PM -0600 8/4/08, Deco Rior wrote:

>Hi, Tim:
>
>I think our challenges over the last couple of years have been to:
>
>1). Keep up to date with the prototype and scripto changes to make
>our code prettier!
>2). To try to find a best practice for developing ajax solutions.
>3). To try to find a good testing environment.
>
>The main change we have implemented over the last year has been to
>use $$ much more frequently than before.
>
>I can pretty much tell you that every page we develop has AJAX on it.
>
>As far as the two talking together, we have used all the major
>suspects. In the end this has proven to be quite simple.
>
>Going forward, I would like to see both the libraries you mention
>have some of the widgets in YUI or extJS. While I can get every one
>of these as plugins, none of them are part of the core development.
>
>Lastly, this new charting came out for prototype the other day.
>
>http://blog.deensoft.com/2008/07/28/protochart-prototype-canvas-pretty-charts/
>
>Deco
>
>
>
>On Aug 4, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Tim Taplin wrote:
>
>>Glad to see all the response on this. Thanks for you guys input.  I
>>have been trying to remember why I chose Prototypejs in the first
>>place and now remember discussions with Deco back then when as you
>>point out, jQuery didn't exist and we were writing AJAX handlers by
>>hand.
>>
>>I've found Prototype to be well documented (i've never had the need
>>to mail the support list, but it seems to have good questions and
>>answers.) and logical to use. As I've built increasingly complex
>>sites combining AJAX  with Lasso , I'm rarely stumped with the
>>methods to accomplish  a task, just sometimes working out the logic
>>so that javascript and Lasso can talk to each other.
>>
>>Looking forward to more thoughts.
>>
>>Tim Taplin
>>On Aug 4, 2008, at 11:26 AM, Deco Rior wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>We have used prototype since jQuery was even created and found it
>>>to be very robust. jQuery has more support in the Lasso community,
>>>but both seem to do well.
>>>
>>>As Jason pointed out, jQuery used to be less verbose, but
>>>prototype's latest release has tightened that up.
>>>
>>>However, we actually found some of the compact js can be difficult
>>>to read (e.g. chaining) unless the documentation is good or you
>>>are the author ;-)
>>>
>>>my cent :-)
>>>
>>>Deco
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>>Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>>Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/


--
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stanley S. Weber, Pharm.D., FASHP, BCPP
Associate Dean for Professional Pharmacy Education
University of Washington
PO Box 357631
Seattle, Washington 98195-7631

[hidden email]
(206) 616-8762 (voice)
(206) 685-9297 (fax)


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

Marc Pope
On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Stanley Weber wrote:

> Lasso bracket code makes sense, the newer <?LassoScript ... ?>, not  
> at all.

A lot of people get confused over this and it's not much different  
than this, for example:

Bracket code:

[inline: -search, -database='mydb', -table='mytable', 'customerid'=6]
[records]
        [field: 'name'] with a customerID of [field:'customerID']<br />
[/records]
[/inline]

LassoScript Code:

[

inline: -search, -database='mydb', -table='mytable', 'customerid'=6;
records;
        (field: 'name') ' with a customerID of ' (field:'customerID') '<br />';
/records;
/inline;

]

General rule, skip the first [  and replace the ] with a semi-colon ;

The lasso script code also does not return lots of extra white space  
because you have to put plain text output in single quote ' ' areas.

If you have lots of code on a page, Lasso script can really help page  
rendering times and make your code more readable.

Marc


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

Stanley Weber
Thanks for the insight and I'll give it a go. My naive thought is
that [/records] is easier to see on a page than /records;

Stan



At 2:39 PM -0400 8/6/08, Marc wrote:

>On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Stanley Weber wrote:
>
>>Lasso bracket code makes sense, the newer <?LassoScript ... ?>, not at all.
>
>A lot of people get confused over this and it's not much different
>than this, for example:
>
>Bracket code:
>
>[inline: -search, -database='mydb', -table='mytable', 'customerid'=6]
>[records]
> [field: 'name'] with a customerID of [field:'customerID']<br />
>[/records]
>[/inline]
>
>LassoScript Code:
>
>[
>
>inline: -search, -database='mydb', -table='mytable', 'customerid'=6;
>records;
> (field: 'name') ' with a customerID of ' (field:'customerID') '<br />';
>/records;
>/inline;
>
>]
>
>General rule, skip the first [  and replace the ] with a semi-colon ;
>
>The lasso script code also does not return lots of extra white space
>because you have to put plain text output in single quote ' ' areas.
>
>If you have lots of code on a page, Lasso script can really help
>page rendering times and make your code more readable.
>
>Marc
>
>
>--
>This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/


--
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stanley S. Weber, Pharm.D., FASHP, BCPP
Associate Dean for Professional Pharmacy Education
University of Washington
PO Box 357631
Seattle, Washington 98195-7631

[hidden email]
(206) 616-8762 (voice)
(206) 685-9297 (fax)


--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: slightly (OT) Prototypejs vs jQuery

stevepiercy
Syntax code coloring might help with visually picking out the juicy Lasso bits.

http://stevepiercy.com/lasso_stuff/bbedit_ldml_syntax.lasso

--steve


On Wednesday, August 6, 2008, [hidden email] (Stanley Weber) pronounced:

>Thanks for the insight and I'll give it a go. My naive thought is
>that [/records] is easier to see on a page than /records;
>
>Stan
>
>
>
>At 2:39 PM -0400 8/6/08, Marc wrote:
>
>>On Aug 6, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Stanley Weber wrote:
>>
>>>Lasso bracket code makes sense, the newer <?LassoScript ... ?>, not at all.
>>
>>A lot of people get confused over this and it's not much different
>>than this, for example:
>>
>>Bracket code:
>>
>>[inline: -search, -database='mydb', -table='mytable', 'customerid'=6]
>>[records]
>>  [field: 'name'] with a customerID of [field:'customerID']<br />
>>[/records]
>>[/inline]
>>
>>LassoScript Code:
>>
>>[
>>
>>inline: -search, -database='mydb', -table='mytable', 'customerid'=6;
>>records;
>>  (field: 'name') ' with a customerID of ' (field:'customerID') '<br />';
>>/records;
>>/inline;
>>
>>]
>>
>>General rule, skip the first [  and replace the ] with a semi-colon ;
>>
>>The lasso script code also does not return lots of extra white space
>>because you have to put plain text output in single quote ' ' areas.
>>
>>If you have lots of code on a page, Lasso script can really help
>>page rendering times and make your code more readable.
>>
>>Marc
>>
>>
>>--
>>This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
>>Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/
>
>
>--
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>Stanley S. Weber, Pharm.D., FASHP, BCPP
>Associate Dean for Professional Pharmacy Education
>University of Washington
>PO Box 357631
>Seattle, Washington 98195-7631
>
>[hidden email]
>(206) 616-8762 (voice)
>(206) 685-9297 (fax)
>
>

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steve Piercy               Web Site Builder               Soquel, CA
<[hidden email]>                  <http://www.StevePiercy.com/>

--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/Lasso/