Mootools vs Script.aculo.us
After working with Mootools a bunch on a project (2K), I think I’ll be sticking with Script.aculo.us for GC. The main reason for me comes to down to documentation, but there are some peripheral reasons.
For it’s DOM stuff, Script.aculo.us uses Prototype out of the box and I think Prototype has AWESOME documentation, the pillar of what everything should aspire to documentation wise. For it’s effects, Script.aculo.us uses a wiki. Now I don’t think this is great (I don’t love the wiki look), but the way the pages are written up do make them more approachable than Mootools. With Mootools, there aren’t a whole lot of examples and I got the sense to really get good with it, you had to use undocumented properties and methods. It felt like a class I would make ;) Plus, many of the wiki pages include functioning examples inline, which Mootools relegates to another non-exhaustive section.
I’m also gonna use Script.aculo.us because I like how it’s effects have a delay property, which is super handy. And it uses the existing CSS properties as it’s starting point for animations. And it has more (and more useful) built in effects.
The main reasons I would recommend Mootools over Script.aculo.us is that their download page is the sickest thing ever and it’s domain isn’t a pain in the ass to type. I HATE the name. I hate having to use command-v over and over again to insert it into this blog. Also the Mootools site is more slick looking. But these aren’t really reasons to use it over Script.aculo.us.
Personally, “moo” pwns “lous”. And their implementation of prototype is nearly identical (”Some functions are inspired by those found in prototype.js http://prototype.conio.net/ © 2005 Sam Stephenson sam [at] conio [dot] net, MIT-style license”). Not sure what you mean about documentation…moo’s is sick:
http://docs.mootools.net/Effects/Fx-Transitions.js
Also, does scriptaculous have chaining? I don’t remember it.
http://demos.mootools.net/Chain
Also:
http://docs.mootools.net/Native/Function.js#Function.delay
With their site design and the package creation (where you can select which functionality you want and have it compressed)…Moo, ftw.
Comment by Ben — March 8, 2008 @ 10:26 am
Moo’s documentation looks nice, but actually figuring out how to use it’s methods is no where near as straightforward as prototypes and scripts. At least that’s how it reads to me. For instance, I’ve never heard of chaining (that demo was tight) and when I went to find where that exists in the docs, I couldn’t find it. Maybe it’s a personal thing, but I spend may more time pecking through mootools to find stuff.
The “nearly identical” though means that I can’t just count on everything that’s in prototype being in it. For instance, they fire way less events for ajax requests. And compare how they talk about identical fundamental things:
http://docs.mootools.net/Native/Element.js#$
vs
http://www.prototypejs.org/api/utility/dollar
Prototype holds my hand and walks me through it :)
Mootools package creation is the shit and was why I was pumped to try it in the first place.
Comment by Robert — March 8, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Those demos have a link to “doc references” which opens a list of links to the documentation, showing all the relevant docs for that demo. You can also see the .js source, .html markup and .css for that specific demo. That’s what I like about Moo’s docs is the friendly usage demo page.
For example, the Chain demo uses a delay at one point and that is listed in the docs:
6. Native/Function.js#Function.delay
Guess it’s really just a matter of preference. I think Koa might even throw JQuery into the mix as better than both to be honest. You have a lot of great options, that’s for sure :)
Comment by Ben — March 8, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Don’t forget the mootorial:
http://clientside.cnet.com/wiki/mootorial
:)
Comment by Ben — March 8, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
MooTools isn’t THAT hard to figure out and is by far a better well built set of tools.
Comment by hayden — May 11, 2008 @ 7:43 pm