Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

JavaScript Toolkit V1.1.0 Released

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the new-toolkit-to-blame dept.

Programming 65

First time accepted submitter Mensa Babe writes "Oliver Morgan, the original author of the JavaScript Toolkit, or just 'The Toolkit' as it is known in the JavaScript community, has just announced the release of the long awaited version 1.1.0, with better documentation and added function support. Quoting the project documentation: '[JavaScript] Toolkit offers a large number of integrated methods and utilities to help enrich the javascript object library. Javascript was built originally for browsers and as such lacks a large number of data utility methods with are seen in languages such as Python and Ruby. However times have changed and JavaScript is being used more and more in backend platforms. JS Toolkit aims to bridge that gap and provide everyone a modern developer needs to produce fast, secure and tidy code quick and easily.' The Toolkit fully supports ECMAScript 5 and runs on the most important virtual machines that we have today, including Node.JS, V8, Rhino, RingoJS, and many others. It continues to be actively developed."

cancel ×

65 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A boot stretcher (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37292918)

Is only a temporary fix for the fact that you bought the wrong size.

Re:A boot stretcher (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37302198)

Amen!

Sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37292922)

This will nicely complement my soon-to-be-released JS-LAPACK and JS-FDLIB packages.
The more Javascript the better as far as I'm concerned!

Maybe it's just me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37292956)

But I think it'd be nice if we just saw more dev activity in Prototype JS.

What about the funnel API? (1)

Crazy_entertainer (2442572) | more than 3 years ago | (#37292962)

The DOC pages are here [funnelchair.com] which describe the same capability plus the ability to use rails like ruby on rails.

The Toolkit? (4, Interesting)

Mekabyte (678689) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293074)

Since when is this known as "The Toolkit"? The lack of github followers and general references across the internet makes this claim suspect. Its History file only goes back a few days, so I wonder how this could possibly be "long-awaited."

Re:The Toolkit? (4, Funny)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293168)

You misunderstood. "The JavaScript Community" is the name of a Seattle-based indie band. Those four boys are very excited about this release.

Re:The Toolkit? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294336)

You misunderstood. "The JavaScript Community" is the name of a Seattle-based indie band.

What, no torrent?

Re:The Toolkit? (1)

devleopard (317515) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293178)

In related news, Slashdot editors, or "The Tools" as they are known in the geek news community, will access any random posting that is linked to GitHub ....

Re:The Toolkit? (0)

morcego (260031) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293396)

Nothing personal, but I had Timothy filtered for years. Decided to remove the filter a few days ago to see if things have changed ... they haven't.

Back to being filtered.

Re:The Toolkit? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294956)

Isn't disliking someone for their stupidity or sloppiness personal by definition? I suppose "nothing personal" was just meant as code for "I don't wish he were dead", "I acknowledge he may have good traits", "I don't wish to be confrontational", or something similar.

Re:The Toolkit? (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 3 years ago | (#37297812)

Nothing personal means "I don't know him, and can't judge him as a person".

I don't know him to say "he may have good traits". As far as I know, all his other traits might be good. My only problem is with his lack of taste/sense choosing articles.

Re:The Toolkit? (1)

the11thplague (1776646) | more than 3 years ago | (#37295310)

and provide everyone a modern developer needs to produce fast

What's that supposed to mean? Indeed, there's no editing at all.

Re:The Toolkit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37293960)

I use JavaScript every day and have used practically all of the major libraries. I've never even heard of this one...

Re:The Toolkit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37294170)

AFAICT, calling it "the toolkit" in the google groups posting (linked in the summary) == the whole JS community calling it that...

Re:The Toolkit? (1)

eric_harris_76 (861235) | more than 3 years ago | (#37305960)

Well, I'm glad I didn't waste any time installing it or reading the documentation. If I'd read more than the original e-mail from Slashdot, I could have saved myself the bother of downloading it, too. Now to save myself some disk space, and delete the thing. -Eric

Re:The Toolkit? (1)

eric_harris_76 (861235) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308562)

So, in the interest of making lemonade from lemons, the best of a bad situation, and avoiding cliches like the plague ... Are there any open source JavaScript toolkits that do what this was supposed to do?

Long awaited? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37293104)

has just announced the release of the long awaited version 1.1.0

My first thought was... by whom? The prior version, 1.0.0, was released on Aug 27 [github.com] , a week ago.

It continues to be actively developed.

By which we mean, he got back into it last month [github.com] .

First time accepted submitter Mensa Babe...

Is an idiot.

Re:Long awaited? (1)

devleopard (317515) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293154)

+1 parent

Slashdot these days:
1. your personal PR machine for whatever little open source project you have, with unrestricted hyperbole.
2. copy and paste first paragraph of an article that might be interesting, and call it a submission - coming up with an interesting summary is for wimps

Re:Long awaited? (5, Interesting)

weezel (6011) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293404)

Do you really want to be using a library from someone who thinks 'odd' means divisible by 3? Or that you'd need a library function for this? but hey at least he's got tests...

https://github.com/ollym/toolkit/commit/ede890a31eb1cad52d8f3bcd30e5c0afa8cc60e3 [github.com]

Re:Long awaited? (1)

callmebill (1917294) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293700)

I had to see it to believe it! I had no idea that 6 was an odd number. Well, back to square-one.

Re:Long awaited? (2)

Rizimar (1986164) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293782)

Oh, no. You read that correctly. 6 is now odd and even in the JavaScript Toolkit. This thing called "math" has been depreciated in favor of faster execution.

Re:Long awaited? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37294240)

*twitch*

deprecated

Re:Long awaited? (1)

Rizimar (1986164) | more than 3 years ago | (#37305228)

Whoops. My AJAX-based spell checker also neglects to underline words that might be out of context or misspelled because underlining wastes CPU cycles.

Re:Long awaited? (1)

gadzook33 (740455) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293942)

Holy $hit dude.

Re:Long awaited? (1)

ollymorgs (2452542) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294020)

It's early days. Thanks for pointing this out. Has now been fixed.

Re:Long awaited? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37294472)

What? I thought it was long awaited. I mean how can 'the Toolkit' be in an early stage?

Re:Long awaited? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37294402)

isn't % modulo ?I tried this on my box :

my $weezer;
if (30%3 ==0) {
$weezer="wiener";
} else {
$weezer="winner";
}
print "\$weezer is a $weezer\n";

the result is :

$ perl weezer.pl
$weezer is a wiener

Re:Long awaited? (1)

thePuck77 (1311533) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302560)

I found your problem. You're using Perl.

Re:Long awaited? (1)

qmaqdk (522323) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294620)

I like the idea, and I'd like to contribute. Here's a plus function:

plus: { value: function(y) {
    return this + 2;
}}

You can test it with
function Plus(result) {
    result((2).plus(2), 4, '2+2 is 4');
}

Re:Long awaited? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37294978)

Go for it! Announcing "Parody", the unit tested javascript framework for non-programmers.

Re:Long awaited? (1)

thePuck77 (1311533) | more than 3 years ago | (#37302552)

Holy shit, that made me snicker in smug superiority like I haven't in a long time. I think that may have been the first algo I learned, right after I learned

10 home
20 print "hello world!"
30 end

That's right...Apple Basic represent!

Re:Long awaited? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37294220)

First time accepted submitter Mensa Babe...

Is an idiot.

...and a sockpuppet [slashdot.org] .

Underscore.js (2)

kingcool1432 (993113) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293142)

I admit I haven't heard of this before but a quick glance through the documentation reveals nothing that any CS student couldn't knock out with a couple days work. Compared to the excellent Underscore.js (http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/) this comes out as a damp squib. Am I missing something?

Re:Underscore.js (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293250)

Pants?

feh, try phpjs (1)

Eil (82413) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293410)

Okay, I've done some moderate JavaScript programming in the course of programming many websites and I've used most of the popular libraries out there. But I've never even heard of this JavaScript toolkit. A quick trip to the home page shows that it's trying to be yet another attempt at a JavaScript standard library. And not a very good one, either. A few helper libraries. Pfft!

If you really want a JS library that does damn near everything under the sun, check out php.js [phpjs.org] . They have the vast majority of core PHP functions implemented in JavaScript.

Re:feh, try phpjs (4, Informative)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293426)

They have the vast majority of core PHP functions implemented in JavaScript.

I just threw up in my mouth.

Re:feh, try phpjs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37293538)

haha. my kingdom for a mod point!

Re:feh, try phpjs (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294290)

They have the vast majority of core PHP functions implemented in JavaScript.

Whoever came up with that idea, he'll have a very, very special place in Hell.

I hear they make such people write a C++ compiler that compiles to JavaScript. In PHP.

PHP in JS is a great idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37294920)

... for the people writing it. A useful learning experience. They can easily compare actual (PHP) and their 77th iteration/bug fix and with any luck get better at creating accurate code in the process.

Re:feh, try phpjs (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294312)

If you really want a JS library that does damn near everything under the sun, check out php.js [phpjs.org] . They have the vast majority of core PHP functions implemented in JavaScript.

Yeccccch.

Way back when (5+ years ago), I did just the opposite--I saw what a mess PHP had in lieu of certain features (abysmal date and XML handling), and ported a bunch of JS objects to it.

I still use my ported Date class anytime I have to mess with dates in PHP.

I think PEAR has one of its own now, but I still prefer mine, since it follows the ECMA standard. Oddly enough, this seems to be the reason PEAR rejected it (even though they gladly took and still use to this day my XML services stuff that nobody else could be arsed to implement), and the 'standard' one doesn't seem to follow any.

A little clarity.... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37293610)

I created the toolkit, I never spoke with this timothy and never asked for it to be published here? I'm not particularly happy with it being done either given that i've been working on it for several days and there is a load of issues which need fixing before I'd even want it considered let alone used in production.

So let me clarify.

- It's not based off any existing language or framework in particular. I'm taking what I find useful from the different ones available. The API is not set in stone yet there are still a number of large changes I still plan to make.

- I haven't and will never condone this as official in anyway. It's something I want to continue to use throughout MY projects and would find help/contribution helpful so i made it open-source. I have never come across Slashdot before - ever. And why on earth would I want to run a "PR campaign" for it anyway? I have much better things to do with my life.

- In short response to all your pointless negativity:
1) It's not long awaited - perhaps by me but I've never thought anyone else really cared.
2) It's never been known as "The Toolkit" I've never called it that so I don't know where the JS Community got the name from.
3) It has a handful of PHP functions, most of functions came from Ruby and Underscore.JS.
4) Every O-S project starts somewhere, U.JS had a humble beginning - so has mine. They are considerably different in their goals and current implementation. I strongly advise you know the difference before choosing or listening to the dismissive people in this thread.

And a final thanks to those of you who kindly took the time out of your day to come send me hate-mail.

Peace :) x

Re:A little clarity.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37293718)

I'm not particularly happy with it being done either given that i've been working on it for several days and there is a load of issues which need fixing before I'd even want it considered let alone used in production.

I'm as baffled as anyone as to why anyone would care about your project, but you can't really complain about people jumping the gun if you've given it a 1.1.0 release number. 1.0 is supposed to be the first production-ready release. There are even tools with sub-1.0 versions that are production ready.

Put the proper 0.x version on it so that it will be properly ignored and we can go back to paying attention to the projects that are actually useful.

Re:A little clarity.... (3, Informative)

ollymorgs (2452542) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293866)

Haha I can't believe how spiteful this place is. I don't understand why it's so impossible for you guys to just ignore something you think should be ignored. Or do you have to make sure that everyone who wants to make up their own mind should ignore it too.

Just incase you haven't got it already... I had a need for an ECMA5 targeted toolkit for my Node.JS development that provided all the useful goodness Ruby, Python and PHP had been given over the years which JS had never really had a need for (living mainly in the cave of the browser). A simple comparison:

Underscore.JS:
_.map([1,2,3], function(a, b) { return a * b });

JS Toolkit:
[1,2,3].map(function(a, b) { return a * b });

I didn't care about intruding the object namespace because ECMA5 introduced property descriptors which allowed me to make any extension methods non-enumerable and essentially no different to how other native methods were implemented. So with that in mind I created something that made more sense to me than underscore.js, as why should I have to use an underscore at all? Trust me if there were something that suited my needs I would have used and contributed to that instead.

I'm surprised it managed to find it's way here so quickly. It is still an immature project but perfectly useable with a few small bugs i'm working my hardest to iron out. It wasn't published by me so clearly there was someone who thought it worth showing to the world. I'm grateful to that person's support and I will do my best to see it through.

Re:A little clarity.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37294010)

Haha I can't believe how spiteful this place is. I don't understand why it's so impossible for you guys to just ignore something you think should be ignored.

You must be new here.

Re:A little clarity.... (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#37295250)

ollymorgs (2452542)

Looks like it. Seriously ollymorgs the internet is full of rude assholes, and this place is no different. No moaning about it is going to get any other result than more abuse.

Re:A little clarity.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37296598)

Yeah, you sorta got screwed over by the submitter. I give you credit for actually posting in response. The odd function %3 , is pretty messed up though. Open source is like that though, all your mistakes are public and recorded for all time. Unless your were on mind altering chemicals, that is somewhat unforgivable grade school math concept misunderstanding.

Re:A little clarity.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37294482)

You're an ASSHAT. Certified. It's no wonder you're posting as AC, your both a troll and flamebait.

I'm guessing you're around 17? Typical.

Re:A little clarity.... (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294186)

Keep going, ignore slashdot. We're ignorant sometimes. Welcome to the fun.

Re:A little clarity.... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294338)

timothy is the editor who gave this story the green light, but the original submitter is "Mensa Babe", so you should thank her.

Though, judging from this post of yours, this is likely just an unusual way of trolling you and/or Slashdotters.

Re:A little clarity.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37294582)

original submitter is "Mensa Babe", so you should thank her.

A "Mensa Babe" is just like God. Some people believe she exists, but science can't prove she exists.

You're not qualified. (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294610)

Every O-S project starts somewhere, U.JS had a humble beginning - so has mine. They are considerably different in their goals and current implementation. I strongly advise you know the difference before choosing or listening to the dismissive people in this thread.

You think an "odd number" means "divisible by 3", which means you have a less-than-middle-school education in math. That's not a "humble beginning". You're simply not qualified for the task you've undertaken. For fuck's sake, you didn't even look at the wikipedia page on parity [wikimedia.org] , apparently.

Re:You're not qualified. (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294800)

Or, they typed "3" instead of "2", and "0" instead of "1". I have to admit this is unlikely.

Re:You're not qualified. (3, Insightful)

auLucifer (1371577) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294880)

Woah settle down cowboy. It's his project for his own work. If that is the worst bug you can find in his project then he's doing much better then a lot of code I've come across, even in major java frameworks.

What makes someone 'qualified' to write code for themselves? Does he need to drown in student debt? Spend years studying just to get there? Everyone started somewhere so get off your high horse and let the guy make his own mistakes.

It's not a bug... (1)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#37296750)

...it's a fundamental misunderstanding of mathematics.

Re:It's not a bug... (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307826)

Nah, it's a typo, I bet you. 2 and 3 are right next to each other on the keyboard? And if someone for their own framework wants a function for that, why not? Of course it's kinda pointless, but to to make this about mathematics.... wow :D

Re:You're not qualified. (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#37295288)

For fuck's sake who, apart from the very nerdy like yourself, would read that overcomplicated explanation of a very simple concept.

Re:A little clarity.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37295044)

Your announcement: [google.com]

Just to mention i've released the next version of the toolkit with
better documentation and added function support.

Your comment: [slashdot.org]

I created the toolkit [...] It's never been known as "The Toolkit" I've never called it that

Your documentation: [github.com]

Most people will be using Node.JS - JST is listed on the NPM registry under 'toolkit'. As it is a generic framework we recommend you use it in all your projects. So install it globally by:

npm install -g toolkit

Then to use it within any of your projects simply put the following at the top of your main js file. Note you don't have to continue requiring it on every module as it only needs to be required once!

require('toolkit');

This comment will probably get modded down but you did in fact call it 'the toolkit' many times and by making its official name in the registry just 'toolkit' you have made it official. Now everyone who 'requires toolkit' in JavaScript is using your library. I don't know why people keep giving their toolkits such generic names, it reminds me of the Web module in Perl 6 and the controversy about its name, but now saying that you didn't call your toolkit the toolkit is a little bit to late. Either way it's just a name. What is more important is the code which I think is pretty good. Keep up the good work.

Horray! Another library! (3, Insightful)

narcc (412956) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293730)

I was sad to discover that some code I'd recently written was perfectly readable and maintainable. I thought to myself "If people can easily understand and maintain this code, they'll think I'm some kind of n00b."

Thanks to judicious use of libraries like jquery and prototype.js, I'm happy to report that my code is both impossible to understand, difficult to extend, and an absolute nightmare to maintain. That's right, I'm now officially a "rock star" level programmer.

"The Toolkit" as us rock stars call it, now offers me the perfect opportunity to do away with those nasty simple library functions I've collected over the years. Things like string manipulation, for example, that were handled quickly and efficiently by a few simple easy-to-understand functions are now garbled up in yet another over-sized and bug ridden JS library.

My pages take longer to load and run slower than ever before! This is enterprise level code I'm pushing out here folks.

Here's a few hints to help you achieve the same level of greatness:

1) RAM is cheap, use as much as you can.

2) Forget about performance, if your code is too slow, upgrade. Computers get faster every year.

3) Arrays are for idiots who can't code. Import a collections framework for even the simplest of tasks. Need 10 integers to be manipulated by one function and then discarded? You can't go wrong with a thread safe hash table!

4) Load the library that has the function you want, even if you've already loaded a library with similar functionality. Like jquery's trim() function better than underscore.js? Import them both! Never mind that you only needed to use one function from each library or that any first-year CS student could write them in 10 minutes, you're a rock star. You use what you want.

5) Don't be afraid to re-invent the wheel. Other people are idiots, so assume that whatever you can hack together is automatically better. This especially applies to date and time functions.

So fellow rock stars (and future rock stars) ignore all of the negative comments in this discussion about "The Toolkit". Just because these n00b's can't comprehend its awesomeness dos not mean that it's not the perfect hammer for driving screws.

Re:Horray! Another library! (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 3 years ago | (#37294324)

Fuck me, I wish I had some Rock Star Mod Points.

Well said, mate, well said.

Is it OK to say "shit" on television? (0)

Somecallmechief (1103905) | more than 3 years ago | (#37293780)

No? Well, shit.

YES! FP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37294370)

and help us! 'You 5Ee, even

And with this thread... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37295278)

I sure hope none of my pet projects ever make it to slashdot!

Never heard of it (1)

ippa (242316) | more than 3 years ago | (#37295998)

Though IMHO http://sugarjs.com/ [sugarjs.com] looks better + have way more github followers.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?