Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 1:16 PM, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>
>
>> Yehuda Katz
>> (ph) 718.877.1325
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>> * Yehuda Katz wrote:
>> >Most people would accomplish that using jQuery. Something like:
>> >
>> >var previous = $(current).closest("tr").prev(**)
>> >
>> >I'm not exactly sure what `current` is in this case. What
>> edge-cases are
>> >you worried about when you say that the JavaScript is "quite
>> involved"?
>>
>> It is unlikely that your code is equivalent to the code I provided, and
>> sure enough, you can point out in all discussions about convenience APIs
>> that people could use a library. I don't see how that is relevant here.
>>
>>
>> It's relevant because Tab's argument is that a mix of selectors and JS
>> APIs will work, and I'm demonstrating that by showing that that's what
>> *people actually do* today.
>>
>
> Of course that can be taken in one of two ways; it either shows that it's
> fine to have a limited selection DSL because people can fall back on using
> a full programming language, or shows that today's selction DSLs have
> failed because people are being forced to fall back on a full programming
> language and the whole of jQuery to satisfy their needs.
>
On the flip-side, jQuery gives us a good set of primitive DOM traversal
methods that people have used successfully to satisfy their needs. It would
probably be worth considering implementing some of them natively. Which is,
I think, Tab's point.
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 21:23:21 UTC