[dojo-contributors] Prototype-al simplicity

Tom Trenka ttrenka at gmail.com
Fri Apr 7 21:06:02 EDT 2006


>
> > IMO, # of functions is maybe not a good metric. What I mean is that
> > we've chosen factoring and readable code over compound functions.
>
> OK, so I don't think making our code unreadable is the correct
> answer.  I also don't believe that our coding style is causing us to
> be 4 times the size of Prototype.


At the same time I'm not sure having 4 functions that serve a very similar
purpose but differ only in name is the solution either; I think we have a
combination of things happening here that all contribute to the size of the
code.

Also bear in mind that while this dojo core is quite a bit larger than
Prototype, there's a few reasons for it:

1. we have a bit more comprehensive code going on (not always a good thing)
2. we aren't naming our functions $_$() and $$$$() and whatever.

So we probably shouldn't go by that metric so much (at least comparing
ourselves to Prototype).  But at the same time having lots of functions that
could be condensed without any major performance hit may help quite a bit,
and it'd still be readable.

Bottom line, functions need to be dropped or moved.  I find it a
> little concerning at the general unwillingness to cut functions.
>
> Not sure Paul is referring to you here Scott but there does need to be
some heartless cutting, I think :)

trt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/attachments/20060407/8c3c70dc/attachment.htm 


More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list