Firebug Plugin: Illuminations for Developers(sencha.com)
sencha.com
Firebug Plugin: Illuminations for Developers
http://www.sencha.com/blog/firebug-plugin-illuminations-for-developers/
1 comments
Well, first of all, this tool also works with Dojo Toolkit, SproutCore, YUI, Google Closure Library, qooXdoo, etc. The key take away is that if you are doing anything more than splashy webpages with animation, then you will need to work with a framework (like all of these) instead of a toolkit (like jQuery).
The same thing happened on the server side some time ago when people just wrote some html home pages with some scripting tags (aka PHP). Eventually, when you start to create something complex, people started using some "scripts" and then eventually started doing MVC and the like on the server. Keeping with PHP, this means that people started using Zend Framework, CodeIgnitor, CakePHP, Symphony, YII, etc.
Some people complained that it was too much for lowly HTML, but time and capabilities advanced anyhow. Now that time is coming to the client, thanks to faster browsers, and HTML5 local storage. And mobile. Latency and offline mean storing things locally, and that means business logic at the client.
Prepare to love our JS framework overlords.
To make this tool, I dealt with all the frameworks listed. All have some flaws. ExtJS has copious markup (and CSS), and some non-optimal layout choices. ExtJS4, which you can download a preview of, has dealt with them. I admit, there is some of my ideas in there they ran with. One I did not propose, but (like Closure) they are using in v4 is rendering based on browsers. Old browsers get the copious markup so a real and good looking UI will be possible. And where it can be done in CSS3 instead, they use far less markup. The fast browsers become even faster.
The same thing happened on the server side some time ago when people just wrote some html home pages with some scripting tags (aka PHP). Eventually, when you start to create something complex, people started using some "scripts" and then eventually started doing MVC and the like on the server. Keeping with PHP, this means that people started using Zend Framework, CodeIgnitor, CakePHP, Symphony, YII, etc.
Some people complained that it was too much for lowly HTML, but time and capabilities advanced anyhow. Now that time is coming to the client, thanks to faster browsers, and HTML5 local storage. And mobile. Latency and offline mean storing things locally, and that means business logic at the client.
Prepare to love our JS framework overlords.
To make this tool, I dealt with all the frameworks listed. All have some flaws. ExtJS has copious markup (and CSS), and some non-optimal layout choices. ExtJS4, which you can download a preview of, has dealt with them. I admit, there is some of my ideas in there they ran with. One I did not propose, but (like Closure) they are using in v4 is rendering based on browsers. Old browsers get the copious markup so a real and good looking UI will be possible. And where it can be done in CSS3 instead, they use far less markup. The fast browsers become even faster.
No, thank you.
I have to deal with ExtJS at my current job and I know I would never use this bloatware for any of my personal projects.
It is just bloat.
It tries to fool you by giving you a big library of pretty things that do nothing but blind your eyes from the real stuff that is going on. It was probably built by some people that don't understand the web, secretly hate it and need some desktop-programming abstractions to deal with it.
This approach has one limitation: as soon as you try to do something that the framework designers didn't plan for, you'll run into problems and have to write more work-around code than you would need in a straightforward manner.
Also, its documentation sucks:
- it uses JavaScript where it isn't necessary, - it works slow, - it breaks normal browser navigation, - it shows too much information on one page for the components that are already bloated.
Instead of doing something useful, the authors of this documentation chose to build something to show-off.
My advice: if you are building applications with dumb forms -- ExtJS is for you. If you want to build rich applications, customized to your user needs -- avoid it.
I have to deal with ExtJS at my current job and I know I would never use this bloatware for any of my personal projects.
It is just bloat.
It tries to fool you by giving you a big library of pretty things that do nothing but blind your eyes from the real stuff that is going on. It was probably built by some people that don't understand the web, secretly hate it and need some desktop-programming abstractions to deal with it.
This approach has one limitation: as soon as you try to do something that the framework designers didn't plan for, you'll run into problems and have to write more work-around code than you would need in a straightforward manner.
Also, its documentation sucks:
- it uses JavaScript where it isn't necessary, - it works slow, - it breaks normal browser navigation, - it shows too much information on one page for the components that are already bloated.
Instead of doing something useful, the authors of this documentation chose to build something to show-off.
My advice: if you are building applications with dumb forms -- ExtJS is for you. If you want to build rich applications, customized to your user needs -- avoid it.
I can't agree with you more - on every single point.
Even dumb forms don't work right with ExtJS. One example: there is no sane (or even insane - but documented) way of setting a default option in a combobox, or disabling individual options. Really?!
Seriously if you feel you need to use some big desktop-in-the-browser framework, look at SproutCore, or YUI, or Dojo, or Cappuccino, or....anything else.
Even dumb forms don't work right with ExtJS. One example: there is no sane (or even insane - but documented) way of setting a default option in a combobox, or disabling individual options. Really?!
Seriously if you feel you need to use some big desktop-in-the-browser framework, look at SproutCore, or YUI, or Dojo, or Cappuccino, or....anything else.
Wow you guys are seriously just haters who obviously have little (if any) real experience building commercial-grade rich internet applications.
If you go beyond a simple page you need a decent "heavyweight" framework, otherwise you just end up with a big ball of mud or writing your own. Extjs happens to work extremely well for experienced JS devs.
Illuminations is an outstanding plugin of serious pragmatic use. Its already paid for itself many times over in my work.
Oh and btw my forms work great - your obviously just a fool who blames the framework instead of your lack of ability which is the real cause.
If you go beyond a simple page you need a decent "heavyweight" framework, otherwise you just end up with a big ball of mud or writing your own. Extjs happens to work extremely well for experienced JS devs.
Illuminations is an outstanding plugin of serious pragmatic use. Its already paid for itself many times over in my work.
Oh and btw my forms work great - your obviously just a fool who blames the framework instead of your lack of ability which is the real cause.
> Wow you guys are seriously just haters who obviously have little (if any) real experience building commercial-grade rich internet applications.
You just called a group of people haters because they didn't support your ideals. I think this speaks for itself.
What does commercial-grade mean to you? How many users does that mean? How many tested platforms?
Microsoft and Google uses jQuery and not ExtJS, is that commercial-gradish enough for you? or they probably have "little (if any) real experience" according to you.
> If you go beyond a simple page you need a decent "heavyweight" framework, otherwise you just end up with a big ball of mud or writing your own.
This is a dubious claim, because:
- other people may actually be good at writing their own stuff
- ExtJS may not save you from writing custom stuff, because you may need stuff that aren't included
> Extjs happens to work extremely well for experienced JS devs.
> Illuminations is an outstanding plugin of serious pragmatic use.
Can you support these claims or you just wrote them down to justify your ideals?
> Oh and btw my forms work great - your obviously just a fool who blames the framework instead of your lack of ability which is the real cause.
You are obviously someone engaged in a trollish behavior for some reason.
You just called a group of people haters because they didn't support your ideals. I think this speaks for itself.
What does commercial-grade mean to you? How many users does that mean? How many tested platforms?
Microsoft and Google uses jQuery and not ExtJS, is that commercial-gradish enough for you? or they probably have "little (if any) real experience" according to you.
> If you go beyond a simple page you need a decent "heavyweight" framework, otherwise you just end up with a big ball of mud or writing your own.
This is a dubious claim, because:
- other people may actually be good at writing their own stuff
- ExtJS may not save you from writing custom stuff, because you may need stuff that aren't included
> Extjs happens to work extremely well for experienced JS devs.
> Illuminations is an outstanding plugin of serious pragmatic use.
Can you support these claims or you just wrote them down to justify your ideals?
> Oh and btw my forms work great - your obviously just a fool who blames the framework instead of your lack of ability which is the real cause.
You are obviously someone engaged in a trollish behavior for some reason.
> You just called a group of people haters because they didn't support your ideals.
No they are haters because they are spreading FUD about Ext.js with no true or substantial points to support their claims.
> What does commercial-grade mean to you? How many users does that mean? How many tested platforms?
ONE of our apps has > 300k users. No major bugs or usability issues on production. And is tested on every browser with over 5% usage share (too many to list, the info is on the net anyway) on all the major platforms (Win, Lin, OSX).
> Microsoft and Google uses jQuery and not ExtJS
This is laughable. Microsoft and Google use jQuery for web pages. Not applications. Looks at Gmail and find jQuery there ???
> - other people may actually be good at writing their own stuff
If they want to waste their time and be overtaken by the competition who are making better use of resources they are entitled to make that poor judgement.
> - ExtJS may not save you from writing custom stuff, because you may need stuff that aren't included
It takes less resources to extend Ext.js that is does to replicate it.
> Can you support these claims or you just wrote them down to justify your ideals?
Having worked on RIA for over 6 years and having had Ext.js apps in production since Ext.js 2 my experience is that both Ext.js and illuminations work well. I'm not going to write a review and give you cypto certificates to login to apps that are not public. Its an observation from experience.
> You are obviously someone engaged in a trollish behavior for some reason.
Spreading FUD about a framework that is completely false is trollish behavior. I did not do that.
No they are haters because they are spreading FUD about Ext.js with no true or substantial points to support their claims.
> What does commercial-grade mean to you? How many users does that mean? How many tested platforms?
ONE of our apps has > 300k users. No major bugs or usability issues on production. And is tested on every browser with over 5% usage share (too many to list, the info is on the net anyway) on all the major platforms (Win, Lin, OSX).
> Microsoft and Google uses jQuery and not ExtJS
This is laughable. Microsoft and Google use jQuery for web pages. Not applications. Looks at Gmail and find jQuery there ???
> - other people may actually be good at writing their own stuff
If they want to waste their time and be overtaken by the competition who are making better use of resources they are entitled to make that poor judgement.
> - ExtJS may not save you from writing custom stuff, because you may need stuff that aren't included
It takes less resources to extend Ext.js that is does to replicate it.
> Can you support these claims or you just wrote them down to justify your ideals?
Having worked on RIA for over 6 years and having had Ext.js apps in production since Ext.js 2 my experience is that both Ext.js and illuminations work well. I'm not going to write a review and give you cypto certificates to login to apps that are not public. Its an observation from experience.
> You are obviously someone engaged in a trollish behavior for some reason.
Spreading FUD about a framework that is completely false is trollish behavior. I did not do that.
> No they are haters because they are spreading FUD about Ext.js with no true or substantial points to support their claims.
Does you claiming the opposite make your comment valuable?
> This is laughable. Microsoft and Google use jQuery for web pages. Not applications. Looks at Gmail and find jQuery there ???
Sorry, I can't take nobody seriously who uses meaningless buzzwords in this context. Your comment is laughable.
> If they want to waste their time and be overtaken by the competition who are making better use of resources they are entitled to make that poor judgement.
Again: poor assumption.
> It takes less resources to extend Ext.js that is does to replicate it.
What if the functionality inside Ext.js is not what you need? You can extend a hammer to make a tank, it's just not practical.
> Spreading FUD about a framework that is completely false is trollish behavior. I did not do that.
Your 1 day old account and your tone suggest otherwise.
Does you claiming the opposite make your comment valuable?
> This is laughable. Microsoft and Google use jQuery for web pages. Not applications. Looks at Gmail and find jQuery there ???
Sorry, I can't take nobody seriously who uses meaningless buzzwords in this context. Your comment is laughable.
> If they want to waste their time and be overtaken by the competition who are making better use of resources they are entitled to make that poor judgement.
Again: poor assumption.
> It takes less resources to extend Ext.js that is does to replicate it.
What if the functionality inside Ext.js is not what you need? You can extend a hammer to make a tank, it's just not practical.
> Spreading FUD about a framework that is completely false is trollish behavior. I did not do that.
Your 1 day old account and your tone suggest otherwise.
ExtJs is an API for WEB APPS not WEB PAGES.
Ive wrote several big ExtJs apps, its not quick nor easy, but the result code is fully customisable, clean and re-usable.
Which framework gives you as much powerful and customisable widgets, with a wide 'projet' approach as ExtJs ?
Ive wrote several big ExtJs apps, its not quick nor easy, but the result code is fully customisable, clean and re-usable.
Which framework gives you as much powerful and customisable widgets, with a wide 'projet' approach as ExtJs ?
> ExtJs is an API for WEB APPS not WEB PAGES.
ExtJS is a library not an API and I fail to see any connection between the JavaScript library you use and web pages or web apps.
> Ive wrote several big ExtJs apps, its not quick nor easy, but the result code is fully customisable, clean and re-usable.
Does it support progressive enhancement? Is it accessible?
> Which framework gives you as much powerful and customisable widgets, with a wide 'projet' approach as ExtJs ?
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/
ExtJS is a library not an API and I fail to see any connection between the JavaScript library you use and web pages or web apps.
> Ive wrote several big ExtJs apps, its not quick nor easy, but the result code is fully customisable, clean and re-usable.
Does it support progressive enhancement? Is it accessible?
> Which framework gives you as much powerful and customisable widgets, with a wide 'projet' approach as ExtJs ?
http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/
> I fail to see any connection between the JavaScript library you use and web pages or web apps.
The use case of a page vs an application should have a huge impact on the library i.e. architecture you select. If it doesn't and you say for example use jQuery for a RIA your on the road to a big ball of mud.
> Does it support progressive enhancement? Is it accessible?
Progressive enhancement is a concept best applied to web pages not applications.
Ext.js 4 has full ARIA & 508a support. Your example of YUI does not.
> http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/
Name one feature YUI has that Ext.js does not ?
YUI does not have any decent RIA architecture support, for example MVC.
YUI like jQuery is good for pages, not complex applications.
The use case of a page vs an application should have a huge impact on the library i.e. architecture you select. If it doesn't and you say for example use jQuery for a RIA your on the road to a big ball of mud.
> Does it support progressive enhancement? Is it accessible?
Progressive enhancement is a concept best applied to web pages not applications.
Ext.js 4 has full ARIA & 508a support. Your example of YUI does not.
> http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/
Name one feature YUI has that Ext.js does not ?
YUI does not have any decent RIA architecture support, for example MVC.
YUI like jQuery is good for pages, not complex applications.
> The use case of a page vs an application should have a huge impact on the library i.e. architecture you select.
Loose the term 'web page', it's non-existent anymore.
> If it doesn't and you say for example use jQuery for a RIA your on the road to a big ball of mud.
If you don't know how to use it.
> Progressive enhancement is a concept best applied to web pages not applications.
Again: loose your vague buzzwords if you want anybody to take your comments seriously. Progressive enhancement is something that good webdevs do, and lame webdevs ignore, because they are too lazy to look into things.
> Ext.js 4 has full ARIA & 508a support. Your example of YUI does not.
This is a pure lie.
> Name one feature YUI has that Ext.js does not ?
> YUI does not have any decent RIA architecture support, for example MVC.
> YUI like jQuery is good for pages, not complex applications.
I think I have spent enough time on your trollish comments.
Loose the term 'web page', it's non-existent anymore.
> If it doesn't and you say for example use jQuery for a RIA your on the road to a big ball of mud.
If you don't know how to use it.
> Progressive enhancement is a concept best applied to web pages not applications.
Again: loose your vague buzzwords if you want anybody to take your comments seriously. Progressive enhancement is something that good webdevs do, and lame webdevs ignore, because they are too lazy to look into things.
> Ext.js 4 has full ARIA & 508a support. Your example of YUI does not.
This is a pure lie.
> Name one feature YUI has that Ext.js does not ?
> YUI does not have any decent RIA architecture support, for example MVC.
> YUI like jQuery is good for pages, not complex applications.
I think I have spent enough time on your trollish comments.
Like it or not there are content-oriented (aka "pages") vs behavior-oriented (aka "applications") sites nowadays. That is not a "vague buzzword", that is reality. The web has evolved from a content publishing platform to also include application publishing, deal with it.
Of course its not a clear cut line and there are huge grey areas. But there are extremes of these that can be clearly labeled as one or the other.
A blog is not the same as an in-browser ide (e.g. cloud9).
These are drastically different use cases and requirements.
jQuery is awesome for content-oriented sites, as is progressive enhancement. I use both myself when appropriate.
jQuery has no structure for more complex business logic - where is the MVC or the PAC architecture? Awesome projects like Sammy.js and Backbone.js are making this situation a lot better - but are still not a full solution like Ext.js.
Frameworks like Dojo, Ext.js, qooxdoo etc are awesome for behavior-oriented applications aka "RIAs". Progressive enhancement doesn't make as much sense here because there is no where near as much textual/semantic content to "enhance" in the first place. Needlessly applying a concept based around publishing content when there is no significant content will cripple an applications usability.
It was not a lie that Ext.js, esp 4, is accessible and supports standards such as ARIA. Here is an example of an Ext.js treeview with ARIA support that is usable with a screen-reader: http://dev.sencha.com/deploy/dev/examples/tree/aria-tree.htm...
I do apologize for calling people "haters", questioning their experience and using the word "fool". Admittedly it does not help to have a useful conversation. Nevertheless I stand by my points and if the earlier FUD on Ext.js is to be taken seriously those commenters would provide some pragmatic and truthful points.
Of course its not a clear cut line and there are huge grey areas. But there are extremes of these that can be clearly labeled as one or the other.
A blog is not the same as an in-browser ide (e.g. cloud9).
These are drastically different use cases and requirements.
jQuery is awesome for content-oriented sites, as is progressive enhancement. I use both myself when appropriate.
jQuery has no structure for more complex business logic - where is the MVC or the PAC architecture? Awesome projects like Sammy.js and Backbone.js are making this situation a lot better - but are still not a full solution like Ext.js.
Frameworks like Dojo, Ext.js, qooxdoo etc are awesome for behavior-oriented applications aka "RIAs". Progressive enhancement doesn't make as much sense here because there is no where near as much textual/semantic content to "enhance" in the first place. Needlessly applying a concept based around publishing content when there is no significant content will cripple an applications usability.
It was not a lie that Ext.js, esp 4, is accessible and supports standards such as ARIA. Here is an example of an Ext.js treeview with ARIA support that is usable with a screen-reader: http://dev.sencha.com/deploy/dev/examples/tree/aria-tree.htm...
I do apologize for calling people "haters", questioning their experience and using the word "fool". Admittedly it does not help to have a useful conversation. Nevertheless I stand by my points and if the earlier FUD on Ext.js is to be taken seriously those commenters would provide some pragmatic and truthful points.
If you were starting out with some plain semantic markup and adding interaction with jQuery (or Prototype or Mootools) you would do just fine using plain Firebug.
I am wary of tools that brag about solving problems they've caused in the first place.