Which is better for UI development. Are there any differences between the two UI toolkits?
+3
A:
See comparison of features: http://wiki.freaks-unidos.net/javascript-libraries
jQuery is very popular and well integrated in many frameworks, while the only framework in which scriptaculous is integrated is Ruby on Rails.
vartec
2009-03-20 12:45:52
what's RoR? are there many sites using scriptaculous?
bgreen1989
2009-03-20 12:50:26
what do you mean by it is integrated in Ruby on Rails? we have tried using this in Java backend (with Spring framework)?
bgreen1989
2009-03-21 05:35:35
by integrated I mean, that there are specific functions in RoR to connect with Prototype/Scriptaculous.
vartec
2009-03-21 10:38:12
+5
A:
JQuery will be supported in Visual Studio 2010 making it a good choice for .NET developers.
cyberbobcat
2009-03-20 12:47:47
+8
A:
I currently use Prototype/Scriptaculous, but I'm looking to migrate to jQuery. My main reason is that the developers and community behind Prototype/Scriptaculous seem to have disappeared; there haven't been any new releases in a long time, and several features are still a little buggy. The jQuery & jQuery UI teams seem to be very engaged, more open (see this, for example), and have a larger and more active community.
DNS
2009-03-20 12:52:32
bgreen1989
2009-03-20 12:55:39
+2
A:
I just migrated all my client side scripting from Prototype / Scriptaculous to jQuery. The result is better performance (less coding + smaller footprint) and the application as a whole seems much richer. There is something really satisfying about jQuery development.
Prototype is a great library, but I got a little frustrated that, as DNS pointed out, the developers & community seem to have gone to sleep.
karim79
2009-03-20 13:28:47
+3
A:
jQuery is better,
it has noConflict method that allows you to easy migrate, having both prototype/scriptaculous and jquery library included
jQuery is light weight especially in compare with scriptaculous
jQuery produce very simple code that easy to test/review
jQuery support CSS 2/3 selectors even browser doesn't
For ROR there is a plugin jRails
Regards, Pavel
se_pavel
2009-03-21 20:18:54
A:
hmmm I find that scriptaculous is easier to use then JQ because it looks more like javascript and it has more core effects...I like that about it however yes it is a bit buggy and the comunity has started to move to JQuery...However I realy don't like JQ because it is like learning a new lanuage from scratch...it looks nothing like javascript
Jugis
2010-06-30 17:22:37
A:
I've been using jQuery whenever I can. When using scriptaculous, I've found it hard to find suitable plugins that just work. Most of them have bugs or lack good documentation. For example, I went through 3 slideshows including writing my own in Scriptaculous before settling in and modifying one to suit my needs. With jQuery, I just had to go through 1 slideshow plugin because there are so many of them that one was bound to suit my needs.
omouse
2010-10-29 21:04:45