No more work is being performed on this code at the moment, Therefore, I’d rather recommend taking a look at DOMAssistant which is continuously being worked on.

good luck

I agree, I got carried away too far. Way out of line in fact. Dunno why I attacked like that. Maybe I read too many posts of would-be guru’s and mistook you for one of them. Anyway, it doesn’t matter how valid my points are if I bring ‘em like I did there.

Sorry Robert, I promise to think twice before starting a rant like that again. I doubt if I would take it so calmly when it happened to me…

For what’s it worth, I took a look around the site and found many reasons why I shouldn’t have behaved like that. And that’s my final word on it.

falls on knees “Spank me, I’ve been bad”

I wouldn’t call it negotiating, but rather expressing my point of view. The idea of sharing code for free, albeit how simple some people might find it to write it themselves instead, is in the spirit of keeping it free.

See it more as my standpoint that I prefer it not to end up in some product billing ther users.

And it’s ok, your apology accepted, although it it was a borderline example if it was really necessary or not.

Thought you would react on other things though lol.

Yeah, maybe, but that’s a bigger topic, and in the end it’s always a matter of time and context.

It depends on what you mean with “redistribute” . It means free to use, in any web site; if you’re developing a software product that you will sell, to me, the just way to do it would be a matter of negotiation.

What other purpose could the negotiating have?

But maybe I was a bit too harsh. So if I offended in any way, please accept my sincere apologies. Reading the whole thing now after a good meal, there are some passages that I could have phrased less negative. Thought you would react on other things though lol.

Note to self: never comment again on an empty stomach and without sleep. Get’s ugly real fast

I’d just take the opportunity to reply to some of your comments:

…a couple of loose functions don’t make a library.

Not every function has to be dependent on each other to be a library. That’s the difference between utility libraries and concept libraries.

No “great library” shit there, but: essential js functions…

As has been stated numerous times above: the name is ironic. With that said, of course some of the functions are basic ones in almost every application.

…you even dream of charging money…

I have no idea where you gets this from. read the text in the JavaScript file that says: Free to use if this text is included.

First of all, a couple of loose functions don’t make a library. Agreed, most are essential, and every developper worth his/her salt should at least have equivalents (of own making!!) in the toolbox. Why of own making? Because they make a great exercise in coding to specifications (official or adopted). And if one can’t crack those things on his/her own, one shouldn’t hope to ever being called a developper ;). Why at least? Because I can think of some dozen others that are equally essential (take backporting js 1.6 array methods or String.trim for example). But they are still what they are… a bunch of loose functions.

Now to me it’s fine that someone publishes his craftings and shares them with others (let’s agree I mean his/her from now on when I use his) . But announce them as what they are, like the hotshots do. See the remedial javascript page at Douglas Crockford’s site for example. No “great library” shit there, but: essential js functions…

Where this discussion really get’s ridiculous is that in the case of commercial usage, you even dream of charging money for what are in essence nothing more than some almost prototypical functions that any real developper can write in half a day (being polite here :)). Come on man, production quality code is something else altogether. Such quality asks for robustness, meaning exception handling, type checking and stuff like that. Things I almost never see in most so-called “professional” libraries.

Don’t get me wrong, your functions work great and you did a fine job on them. But bashing YUI while you clearly never looked twice at it is, dare I say, plain stupid. It’s entirely modular, no need to include the whole lot if you only need event functions for example. Besides that, it’s coded in such manner that it’s almost impossible to fuck up. As professional-grade code should be. And the argument that many (all?) libraries bring not needed code along, applies to your, um, library too (why, oh why should I use addClassName in every project???).

I think you made an error with dissing Dustin and Chris because of their employment. Those two are at a lonely height when it comes to js development, so a bit more respect would have been appropiate. They WERE in fact hired for their skills (just look at Dustin’s photos and everyone will agree he’d make a terrible PR-guy ;)). Not many people will ever be able to stand next to them concerning coding skills and their craftings speak for themselves. When guys like those two recommend YUI, maybe it’s best to take notice. Also, YUI is their baby (or at least parts of it), so it’s only normal they promote it. Besides that, YUI is simply and plainly one of the best libraries around. Don’t take my word on that, study the source and play around with it. Off course everyone will be thinking by now that I also work at Yahoo. Well, too bad for me I’m not. But I know who’s who, and so should you. In fact, you should be flattered such guys took the time to look at your efforts. I know I would be.

The questions concerning Mootools puzzled me a little. How come a skilled developper like you claim to be, has to ask how something is implemented in it? Download, look at source and you have your answers. At least, that’s how I would do it ;). No time is no excuse, it took me about 5 mins. If I would run a blog on developping, I’d NEVER ask such questions. Not in public anyway lol.

Ok, that was low from me. I know I’ve given a fair amount of criticism here, but remind that it’s all given with the best intentions.

One last word on file sizes: has anyone ever heard of browser caching? After the first download, even something like 300 KB of code is no problem anymore. Why bother then? Most sites send a lot more bytes than that anyway (photographs, logo’s,…), so I don’t see the point. This page alone is now more than 80 KB, and still it loaded fairly fast. I agree that loading a library to use two functions is overkill, but who does that? If I use a library, I USE it. Even when there are some functions you don’t need at every page, just point to it with an absolute URL from everywhere on the site and after the first call it’s fetched from the cache. Lots of goodies at hand and minimal loading time: it can be done with some knowledge of the web internals.

Anyway, time to finish. My rant may be a bit lengthy, but I first read all of the comments and felt like I had some things to reply on. Or is there also a “law” that says comments should be short ;). But I tend to be verbose, I know. Maybe it’s best I start my own blog :). Despite of all the above, I whish you all the best. Untill next time then?