Comments on: Implementing .css() and .attr() in MooTools 1.2.3

By: AndiD

AndiD — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:58:45 +0000

I also agree with Em. Combining the setStyle and setStyles function would be cool and also could lead to a bigger flexibility imo.

The naming convention of mootools is much better in this example. Regardless of knowing the framework or not, every programmer does instantly understand what the code is “doing”.

Another demonstration of mootools > all ;)

By: Oliver Nassar

Oliver Nassar — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:06:53 +0000

I use the below to speed up logging :) Hope it helps someone.

Window.implement({
‘log’: function() {
return console && console.log ? console.log : new function(){};
}()
});

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:52:03 +0000

I agree with Em, while the simplicity is nice in JQuery, the MooTools functions use logical naming conventions

By: EmEhRKay

EmEhRKay — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 06:00:05 +0000

While this is cool to show off MooTools’ flexibility, the verbs set/get are useful because, well, they are verbs and the user can easily tell their purpose. There is no way that id see a css() method and know that it acts as both the getter and setter. People who would find this useful should just use jQuery.

Your code does illustrate a good point — setStyle and setStyles could probably be combined into a single method — probably.