What is Digg?41 Comments
- AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The AJAX homepage I mentioned: http://www.dhtmlgoodies.com/scripts/dragable-boxes/dragable-boxes.html
- arizonagroove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Javascript. Not Java. Java!=Javascript.
- ThankTheCheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6some great scripts, I just hope it doesn't get out of hand like existing JavaScript sites, that encourage ppl to use pop-up windows, obnoxious advertising banners, and other irresponsible uses for JS.
When used properly, AJAX can greatly enhance the experience, useability and accessibility of a site, but please use it properly!
my 2 cents anyway :) still a neat site - airjrdn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"For now, you download a color picker. The next day, you'll download other little tools and, before you know it, you have a whole set of disorganized little functions that (quite possibly) will not work well together."
You're not a Linux advocate are you? - blindot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Go http://script.aculo.us and never go back.
- uppedbyhiggins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The "CSS lookup" reference seems really helpful, I'll probably be referring to this site in the future:
http://www.dhtmlgoodies.com/scripts/css-lookup/css-lookup - microlog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What's wrong with using this instead of prototype or some scripts based on prototype like script.aculo.us or rico?
- jschrab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree. Most of what I see here is about 10 lines of worth of Prototype/Script.aculo.us - or less. While I agree with some posters here that the AJAX rush is making many of us script kiddies, some of these libraries are REALLY worth using. Prototype is awesome. Particularly the Ajax.Updater method. A brief look at this site shows that a lot of these effects could be done with Prototype. Add a Effect.Move from Script.aculo.us and you have the rest.
- computerdude33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I use Dynamic Drive ( http://www.dynamicdrive.com ), but this site looks interesting. Digg.
- nathanfunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think that the size of scriptaculous is an issue. If I only need to use about 5kb worth of javascript, I shouldn't make the users load 100kb. It really depends on the site, but I think in many cases it is smarter to just use the necessary javascript for your site rather than loading in a big library. I think scripatculous and prototype are great libraries, but when speed matters they are getting a little too big.
For people looking for a smaller library with the most frequently used functions I recommend Moo FX (3kb) http://moofx.mad4milk.net. - microlog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a big difference with downloading server side scripts and client side scripts. Let's take your examples. If I implent the color picker 0.1% of my visitors will be very mad since they can't use the site but again they can't use it and if they are really interested they can switch to the "main browsers" like IE/FF.
Now server side, If I download a "register/login/comment" system in let's say PHP without knowing what I am doing a lot of things can go wrong, people can hurt all my visitors thru the bad coded script, drop database etc.
I totally agree with you but we are all humans, if you are a single webmaster and want to create a larger project it's impossible and unnecessary to write all lines of code by yourself. It's much better to download the color picker and write your own login system. - Omicron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i think these scripts are great. i'm a developer who's been lacking in the CSS, JavaScript, AJAX up until recently. i've decided it's way overdue to start learning this stuff, so i've been learning by downloading these types of scripts and disecting them, learning how they work. the first thing i noticed about most of the scripts on this particular site, is that they are very simple. i wouldn't just throw them on a site the way they are, i would get into the code and make them look and function how my site would need them.
obviously if someone just downloads these and throws them on a site w/o editing, the site is gonna be horrible. you have to use them intelligently. that's part of a developer/designer's job.
so anyway, ya, i'm gonna digg this site because i forsee myself looking for this site again very soon. - artnez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Why create your own color picker when his does the job perfectly well?"
Because even Javascript code needs structure. For now, you download a color picker. The next day, you'll download other little tools and, before you know it, you have a whole set of disorganized little functions that (quite possibly) will not work well together. Additionally, when someone downloads this color picker, they dont know _how it works_, thus not understanding what limitations they have. For instance, go here with Opera:
http://www.dhtmlgoodies.com/scripts/color-schemer-v2/color-schemer-v2.html
The drag feature works horribly. Do most users use Opera? Nope. Do most developers test in all browsers? Apparently not. However, that doesn't change the fact that it does not work well in Opera and is bugged.
For arguments sake, lets say it works for you in Opera. Okay, that's great... though you still do not know for certain if all the code you download is not bugged and is squeaky clean. This, by the way, is a huge reason why the register_globals exploiting PHP has gone through the roof since the "script download" sites have popped up. People download code without understand how vulnerable code can be to attack.
If you don't know what I'm trying to get at by now, I guess I'll just lay off. All that I know is that using other people's code without understand how it works is risky business and only contributes to developers that have no freaking clue how things work. All they can do is download little scripts, then people like me are sent in to clean-up their mess. Don't get me wrong, I dont have a grudge... debugging crap code isn't that hard at all. Although I think people can be paid to do much more useful things :) - MrDan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Some useful stuff there.
I find the key with DHTML / AJAX etc is to keep it simple, dont add too many "features" that in the end will just hamper the use of your site (especially for older browsers or dumb people) - weiran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Unfortunatly their drag and drop code requires invalid HTML.
- seventoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Personally i like jQuery, its a little easier even though it doesnt have all of the features of scriptaculus
- JJR2527, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great site I search for scripts like this all the time and I've never come across this site, I'm adding this one to my favorites.
Dugg - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good stuff. Great Site. Anyone know of any other sites like this?
- meeee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> that site has been there since the mid 90's.
Wrong. It's been there since Sep-2005.
>Decent resource. As far as indexing other people's hard work goes.
Wrong. The person who run the site created all the content himself. - spect3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My personal opinion is that these scripts (especially) use way too much code for functionality that is only beneficial for people who are really into Web 2.0 features. Some of the examples (menu on the right, loading site in a frame) are slower than some *shudder* flash setups that look the same.
I will agree though that it's a nice start. People could use these ideas and expand on them, making them into something useful.. - AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Perhaps so, but you are also viewing things in an infinite bubble where you have infinite time. In the case of thsi person's site, he has a collection of small and useful DHTML scripts. Why create your own color picker when his does the job perfectly well?
- AhmedF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No I understand what you are saying, and it is coming heavily as elitist. It not working in Opera is something that the developer has to check - if he/she chooses a script that doesnt support whatever browsers they want to support, its their fault, not the original writer's.
Your registar_globals simply makes my point - there is good and bad code out there on the web. Sure the developer should know what is going on, but you are basically advocating that every little function/function be written by the developer. And that is just a bad idea. - artnez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Whatever happened to the days of learning how something works.
Now, instead of saying "I know DHTML scripting very well", people say "I go to [insert script repository here] and know how to find scripts very well".
This is the cause for most browser incompatibility issues on amateur sites. This was also the cause of thoes fugly site awards that was posted on Digg earlier. I remember debugging someone's PERL code and stumbling upon the templates that had numerous DOM issues. I asked the "developer" what variables did what and how one class was related to the other and all he could say was, "I dont know, I downloaded it."
Scripting in Javascript (and server side stuff like PHP, RoR, etc etc) isn't particularly difficult to pick-up so I don't see why people do this kind of stuff. However it's a good thing... I guess. Someone has to write the code for you to download :)
Some people will bring out the strength of download already existing code .. and bla bla. This is an excuse used by many of todays script kiddies, yet they dont realize that it does not apply to them. That ideal was applied to C programmers who needed librarys to deal with Sockets, HTTP, Encryption, etc. Such things were applications within themselves and been reviewed by the worlds best for years before widespread use. Applying to the Javascript is like telling a someone that knows C to download an open source warehousing system instead of writing it. - jeranon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it's not really at all like start.com or netvibes.com... it has DHTML that both sites use or use similar coding... but this site's purpose is totally different!
- foshizol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Some really nice looking stuff.
- astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I digged this man... it was out of site!"
- The Wofman (House of Frightenstien) - oluckboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0stuff seems pretty decent. Most the code is pretty clean but would require some rewrites to avoided name collisions. Nothing that knocked my socks off.
- MrPennypacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The site has only been around for about 6 months( http://www.dhtmlgoodies.com/index.html?page=contact)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nice stuff. I really digg the "Fly to cart" function! DUGG
- spamdies, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1that site has been there since the mid 90's. cutting edge story you have there speedy, if it was anything newer you wouldnt be able to post it till next week.... sheesh
- haigMeister, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yeh, remember seeing this a while ago, used a menu on my site. It's very nice.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Decent resource. As far as indexing other people's hard work goes. Digg.
- ImNotQuiteJack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Good stuff; very similar to netvibes.com and start.com.
- kzap, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2great site, sweet stuff
- rysolag, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2i only looked at the home page, but it looks like a great resource. judging by the categories they have listed, they cover all the must have dhtml scripts. i dugg this one so i can look at it later. google maps is the best. true that. X2 true.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Some interesting goodies there.
- steph3n, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5'DHTML' is soo web 1.0 - if you're going to have any credibility you should be talking DOM scripting.
DHTML is flying unicorns and clocks that follow your mouse. - everbright, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0where can I find the souce code for that? are they supposed to provide that?
- Johnbinarystar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0excellent digg!
- arizonagroove, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Mediocre.
Amazing if it was 1999, but it's not. - OpticalLiam, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Some cool stuff here but it all goes to pot when java is disabled
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is