Ian Bicking: the old part of his blog

Repetition javascript library comment 000

This library? No, I don't think so -- it's very closely tied to the DOM, and HTML forms. I suspect XForms already has functionality like this built into the spec. This just happens to work today, unlike XForms. I have no idea what Flash programming is like, but I assume they also don't have something similar enough to the DOM for this to matter.

Comment on Re: Repetition Javascript Library
by Ian Bicking


Well... I really did not expect this library to be useful in this context. However, I guess what I am really wishing for is some general usable runtime functions used to create these javascript things. You see, Javascript is now showing up everywhere. It's easy to embed SpiderMonkey or WebKit's version... And there does not seem to be many libraries out there which help in doing basic operations. Instead, Javascript coders keep rewriting the same code over and over. When I saw MochiKit I had/have high hopes of abstracting out the generally usefull methods. Likewise, it would be helpful if the Repetition Javasript library used some abstraction between the web stuff which I do not know and some generally usefull Javascript methods.

I would be happy to find more MochiKit like stuff out there but have not have had the time to look and unsure if any exists of this quality.

On the other hand, can't everything just be written in Python.

# Brian Ray

MochiKit could certainly be used in those other contexts; the only difficulty might be the packaging and loading system, which is quirky in Javascript, and what tools that do exist are usually tied closely to their environment, e.g., a web browser. But MochiKit's things like iteration, adaptation, comparisons, etc., are all core Javascript things with no relation to the web.

# Ian Bicking

MochiKit will eventually end up getting refactored and tested such that it works in some non-browser environments, but that's not an immediate plan of mine -- unless I end up writing Yet Another Goddamned JavaScript Unit-Testing Library.

Test.Simple is OK, but the implementation is ugly, non-portable, and could behave better in Safari. I could do better, but I really need to look at what Dojo is doing first as they also have their own unit test library.

# Bob Ippolito