On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Stuart Dallas <stuart@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 17 Mar 2012, at 10:54, rene7705 wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Stuart Dallas <stuart@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Why do you think other libraries such as jquery recommend minifying their >> code before deployment, and then serving it via gzip? Every bit and byte >> counts, especially as you scale up. >> > > The javascripts are currenlty being served unminified via gzip, because > minifying them all the time creates too much overhead for me. If you want > them minified you can easily do that yourself. > > > Write a script that does the minifying, and everything else necessary to > create a distribution file. Do you really think someone manually runs > jquery through the minifier whenever they create a new release? As it > happens, they use make: > https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/Makefile > > It seems you're pretty new to all this, and I appreciate that, but you > show little to no willingness to learn from the people on this mailing > list, despite asking for feedback. > > > Anyway, I'm not trying to get into an argument (it's rare that I do), but >> I do recommend that you take in what I've said on this issue. The size of >> the data you're sending down the pipe matters if you want your library to >> be used for anything serious, and no amount of artwork or pretty pictures >> will distract anyone for long. >> > > The download size will hardly be an issue for site operators, whom i > seriously suspect will be on faster links. > And the usage size doesn't have to be large, as mentioned earlier. > > > This comment shows how little you understand about the world from your > haven of high-speed internet. Part of the beauty of the internet is that it > allows people to disseminate information on a shoestring. I guarantee that > 90+% of the people behind the billions of websites in the world access the > internet through what you would probably consider a stone age connection. > > It may surprise you to know that two thirds of the people on the planet do > not have any access to the internet at all: > http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm > > Just remember one thing: If you see something obviously wrong, why not > send me the fix? > > > I will, if you pay me. Open source developers don't do what they do "just > because it's there," at least not for the most part. They do it because > their goals align with those of the project, or because the project > presents a particular challenge. > > What are your goals for this project? Why did you develop it instead of > using an existing library/framework? > > Here's why I won't be sending you any fixes… > > * There doesn't appear to be anything your library does that makes it > stand out from the thousands of similar libraries that already exist, many > of which are far more mature and have large numbers of contributors. > > * It's a very, very long way off being suitable for usage as a black box. > > * I see absolutely no value in using your library, either personally or > professionally, never mind contributing to it. > > * Your attitude to the most basic and important advice you've been given > practically guarantees that getting involved would be incredibly > frustrating and fruitless. > > Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, you'd need to pay me *a lot*! > > I don't mean any offence, and I really do applaud your efforts, but in my > opinion you need a sharp dose of reality. I encourage you to continue to > work on your library because this sort of thing is usually a great learning > experience, but don't expect people to help you out when your response to > the most basic advice is "that's too much overhead for me." Add the fact > that you didn't even respond to the very serious security issues I raised > and you can't possibly be surprised if nobody wants anything to do with it. > Oh, and it doesn't matter if that particular code is not actually used > because it's likely indicative of the overall quality of the rest of the > library. > > -Stuart > > Thanks for taking the time to explain your critiques. It's just that I don't put out my software completely free to next be overflowed with more work based on relatively vague descriptions of what would be wrong with it. I put it out there so more experienced programmers can send me improved versions. If you don't feel like doing that for free, that's your right of course. The relatively crappy code in /code/sitewide_rv/lib_fileSystem.php is certainly not indicative of the quality of the rest of the library, I'll guarantee you. Just take a look at the output of get_animatedJavascriptWidgets_javascript.php in the source of my http://mediabeez.ws, and you'll see that that code is indeed of higher quality. As for minifying the javascripts, it would take me another day, maybe 2, to build a script for that. And I don't think it would matter much, all the animatedJavascriptWidgets JS is gzipped 25kb and if I shave 5kb off that (upper estimate) then I don't consider that worth the effort, at this particular time. I have other things (content creation and compatibility) I want to get done atm. I wrote this library because I have been unable to find anything like it on the interwebs. I put it out for free because I think it's cool to give something back to the opensource community. But, again, I'm not interested in having my priority list hijacked by experts who won't bother just to give me back the fix. Have a nice day.
