What is Digg?Sponsored by Newegg.com
$5,000 Newegg Eggstreme Challenge Video Contest Extended to 11/15 view!
newegg.com - Show them what YOU would do with the money you save by shopping at Newegg. Seriously, show them...
37 Comments
- blinking8s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16It's about time!
- ryware, on 07/04/2008, -0/+13This documentation is just the thing Prototype.js needed to grow its userbase. The development team has done a great job with 1.5, it fixes a ton of bugs and adds some new functionality.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Digg for great justice; I've been putting together an Open Source project creating player vs player games using just AJAX and Javascript, all of which would not have been possible without the great work of Prototype, and Script.aculo.us!
http://code.google.com/p/jaxgames/ - brianpeiris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Digg uses prototype *and* scriptaculous.
It's a wonderful platform and it's great to see it alive and kicking! - tarellel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I agree with blinking8s its about dam time. But great work and awesome documentation. Now we can all get started on understanding prototype rather then using a hypothesized learning process.
- jonathansnook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Frankly, it's still bloated as ever. JQuery all the way! 19K vs 29K, it has more features, and it's easier to use. Kind of a no-brainer."
It's actually more a case of 'different features' rather than 'more features' and therefore impossible to just look at file sizes and say "A > B". It all comes down to what you need. If jQuery does what you need, then yes, by all means, use it. If Prototype has the features you're looking for then by all means, use that. - posneg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8So Prototype is feeling the jQuery pressure I guess... mwahahaha
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41.5 AND documentation? Today is officially Christmas!
- grafenberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3what? this didn't make the top story of the month?
this is BIG news people, digg!! :-) - encytemedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Prototype has had chainability for a while now (March 2006), see: http://encytemedia.com/blog/articles/2006/03/07/prototype-gets-some-serious-syntactic-sugar
- stoffe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why? You running Mosaic or some other 90's browser without proper caching mechanism? He could do it to save himself some bandwidth, but really, all these discsussions on a few KB here and there and all the energy spent debating is almost always just about the color on the bikeshed[1]. I don't know, maybe it makes people feel important or something, but I'd rather they actually got good (first) instead.
1. http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.19.shtml - nevetS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The documentation is awesome!
I've updated my compressed release as well:
http://www.stevekallestad.com/blog/prototype_150_compressed.html
It takes the payload down to 30K form 70K, 14K if you factor in server side gzip compression. - fooslayer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm not familiar with the libraries you mentioned. How do they compare with Prototype (which is what I'm most familiar with)?
- Mislav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A decent comment among this unnecessary bashing? Wow :)
In-depth stuff are coming, we'll add it over time to the "learn" section. - krunkosaurus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I've been using the prototype/scriptaculous libraries for a few weeks but the combined files are so huge!
I recently found out about jQuery which does pretty much everything I want and nothing more. Google it. - Fatalis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Whoa! Don't go quoting numbers on us til you know what your talking about. jQuery is 55kb uncompressed, prototype is 29kb uncompressed."
jQuery isn't compressed, it's just packed with Dean Edward's /packer/. You could still send it as gzip and it'd be even smaller. I don't know what's the deal with this cross-talk, though. They're both relatively good libraries that get the job done. - nevetS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not everybody can accept gzipped content, so this helps those people out, and it provides a bit more compression than just plain gzipping does - although prototype.js gzips up pretty well all on it's own.
If you are working with javascript unobtrusively you can do things like rename all the variables that can really have an impact on size, but that's a whole different conversation - samuel514, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A huge documentation about prototype now, cool :) digg for a great Ajax library and some good comments here, worth it!
- duellsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A job well done.
Big fan of the simplicity of prototype, its awesome, makes Ajax a breeze, and having scriptaculous to use on top of it it nice too..
Can't wait for a real use for the more in depth stuff, and for the new version of scriptaculous to come out. - holtonma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Awesome to see! ... Prototype+Scriptaculous are great enablers of Ajax... also like the DojoToolkit (www.dojotoolkit.org) and Tibco GI (which is now open source if you hadn't heard)
- Fatalis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"And what's the compressed size of prototype?"
Packed with the exact same method as jQuery it is 29 KiB. Though I didn't test if it doesn't break. - yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2would you tell Kevin Rose to please compress the javascript libraries on digg?
- AnfiniL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well done, cool!
- GhostFreeman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1about ***** time
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't have the exact numbers, but it's not. Gzip doesn't minify and obfuscate the file, it still has to preserver all whitespace and keyword information. The file will be significantly smaller if that's done before gzip.
- madrobby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So they're "vastly superior", aha.
I can't tell you how said it is every time an article about Prototype or script.aculo.us pops up, the "library-crowd-surfers" must put ads for their libraries in the comments. People put lots of time into providing a great library with now great online documentation, and you post one-liners that have no content at all, just for the sakes that those other libraries are mentioned. Congrats, seems you have understood open source software development, where's it's all versus all. - akkuma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@madrobby
I used Prototype for a project and found that the fact the design is not modular and there were some inconsistent designs in it that I'd be better off not using it. I switched to jQuery for another project and found it to be a better way to code most javascript that doesn't require the complexity of oop. I've recently used mootools for another project due to wanting to throw in a gallery (smooth gallery), but didn't want to invest the time because I required nearly no other javascript. From there I decided to throw in a few animations from mootools while I was using it. It really seems to be impossible to argue for prototype when mootools is created in a similar style, but without being a beast like prototype.
jQuery and mootools get my vote over prototype anyday. Of the two, I have yet to use mootools in a large enough project to see how I'd prefer it over jQuery. There is a good chance I'd go with mootools due to the oop design adding more power to javascript. - kourge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Finally, chainability in Prototype.
- grainosalt, on 09/30/2009, -0/+0I can't wait for more
http://flyhighparagliding.com
http://paraglidefy.com
http://karatify.com
http://toogood2btrue.com
http://toxincure.com - clocktower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"If you are working with javascript unobtrusively you can do things like rename all the variables that can really have an impact on size, but that's a whole different conversation."
The Dojo Compressor (http://dojotoolkit.org/docs/compressor_system.html) takes this approach, using Rhino (the Java implementation of JS) to parse the JavaScript, figure out which variables are internal only (and can thus be renamed to shorter strings), and replace them while leaving your "public" API untouched. It's quite impressive. Combining it with JSMin's approach (removing all whitespace) will produce an even smaller file.
If you're willing to add another step to your build cycle, minification is worth the effort. - lorenjohnson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Slowly, systematically there seems less and less to complain about when it comes to Prototype. I digg. Now if Rails core'd just consider coughing it out of the core of my Ruby on Rails apps I'd be really happy.
- jarkko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just wondering, if you're using gzip compression like mod_deflate and friends (aren't we all), what's the point of additionally compressing the javascripts separately? Shouldn't the end result be pretty much the same?
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Whoa! Don't go quoting numbers on us til you know what your talking about. JQuery is 55kb uncompressed, prototype is 29kb uncompressed.
- PARAPA, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Amazing! But yeah, about time :P
- yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@apotropaic
And what's the compressed size of prototype? - akkuma, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3I have no understanding of why anyone would use prototype over mootools or jQuery as they are vastly superior.
- timdorr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Direct link to said documention: http://prototypejs.org/api
Frankly, it's still bloated as ever. JQuery all the way! 19K vs 29K, it has more features, and it's easier to use. Kind of a no-brainer.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is