Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Adding jQuery To Visual Studio

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Oct 06, 2008 09:14 AM
from the well-isn't-that-special dept.
Tim Anderson writes "Microsoft's Scott Guthrie, Corporate VP of the .NET developer division, announced that the open source jQuery Javascript library will be integrated into Visual Studio, the main Windows development tool. Further, Microsoft will treat jQuery as a supported product within technical support contracts, and will use jQuery to build new controls for ASP.NET, its web platform."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 06 2008, @09:15AM (#25272845)
    If this sounds familiar to you it's probably because we already talked about it [slashdot.org].
    • Ah, but did you hear that Microsoft was adding jQuery to Visual Studio? Maybe I should submit it as a Slashdot story.

      (Seriously, I wonder what the record is for the most times the same story has made it onto Slashdot? Two? Three? A dozen?)

  • http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/29/0249226&from=rss [slashdot.org]

    It's a week ago, though, and this doesn't include Nokia, so I can see how you'd get confused.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Your post is also redundant since the first post says the same thing :-)

      (Yes I read *all* post before posting this - so your revenge will have to wait)
  • If nothing else comes from this, hopefully Microsoft will help to fix the outstanding Internet Explorer bugs. Congratulations again to the jQuery team, keep up the great work.
  • As an engineer I was always taught, "test twice, release once" which was the IT version of "measure twice, cut once". Slashdot has taught me the error of my ways.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think read once is optimistic.

  • Fearful of the power of Slashdot, Microsoft also announced the release of .net® auto-dupe(TM) support to Visual Studio. From now on anything you publish will have a random chance to be published again a few days later.

    This feature is expected to solve the widespread problem of users not wanting to use a first release for fear of bugs. Now they'll see a second release and plunge in! An ASP.net(TM) version will be forthcoming with the next service pack, allowing your website to fill its content needs by d

  • Heard this last week and thought it was a joke. You mean I can refer clients to Microsoft for support on an open source javascript library?

    One big thing about jQuery is how well it works cross-browser. While some of the plug ins can be browser specific, I have rarely had issues deploying it across all browsers. But I just can't see MS supporting a cludgy issue with anything but IE.

    M

  • So what? This "story" on Slashdot's front page doesn't even bother to identify what "jQuery" is. All it does is make a press release pimping jQuery, "now with Microsoft's support!".

  • by operator_error (1363139) on Monday October 06 2008, @10:30AM (#25273705)
    Folks, lemme tell you whatever you remember from learning javascript is largely irrelevant, especially memorizing and learning to 'read' all those ugly syntactical structures of text. In a word, jQuery is 'efficient'. Also, you know all those ajax modal & pop-up windows you see on 'web 2.0' sites, with the soft rounded corners. That's probably jQuery, more likely than not, and it is *easy* to code for, across browser. If you've avoided learning Ajax, you were smart to wait for jQuery.
    • Oh, also jQuery seems to be a viable competitor to Adobe Flash/Flex/Air, and Microsoft's Silverlight, using conventional open DOM standards. Please note that by using a 'hook' technique (like Drupal uses) both Google Chrome & the next Mozilla Firefox puport javascript speed increases of 30x, making my first statement theoretically realistic. I can tell you I feel fairly competitive already using only Drupal and jQuery, and do not feel the need to learn Adobe Air, for example.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Whats the point of comparing this with Adobe Air? Adobe Air is to leverage your web programming skills (yes, including jquery!), to make desktop applications (applications that normally are impossible on the web...for example, one that needs to access local ressources). Its complementary to everything else, it doesn't replace anything.

        For things like Silverlight, the goal isn't even the result the end user sees. Ignoring the joke that was Silverlight 1, the idea is to be able to reuse .NET code (or to some

    • Ugh. More people need to learn JavaScript and *then* DOM and *then* make an intelligent decision on which library to use. Avoiding learning JavaScript and instead learning jQuery pretty much guarantees you will produce awful code. Please spare those of us who may someday have to work with you and don't do that.
  • eclipse/netbeans (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jefu (53450) on Monday October 06 2008, @05:04PM (#25278161) Homepage Journal

    Is there any similar effort toward building eclipse/netbeans/??? IDE's for jquery?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Anyone that has used VisualStudio or any of MS programming options will cringe at MS definition of "integrate".

      Uh, care to elaborate on that? I've used VS before and I've actually found their integration of technologies (SOAP for example) to be quite nice. VS is one of the few MS products that hasn't turned into a completely piece of shit over the years....but I'll still take Eclipse over it any day.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The studio itself is fine. I don't think its built with a bunch of different technologies. Its basically C++. But the products it creates are patched together with all sorts of things. They give you sort of, "widgets" that you just drag in. They try to abstract whether the widget was made in visual C++, C#, Visual Basic, etc. But in the end, it can be important to understand what these things are.

        You can make some really nasty quick and dirty stuff in Visual Studio. Sure if you are out to make solid

        • Re:Scary (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Firehed (942385) on Monday October 06 2008, @10:32AM (#25273727) Homepage

          No kidding. Ever look at how AJAX is handled on .net sites created in VS? javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$cphMain$lnkTotalDnsManager','')
          Talk about maintainable!

          I have to give credit where credit is due - master pages are pretty damn handy, but the rest of what I've worked with in VS seems like a bunch of cobbled-together nonsense produced by people who failed their programming classes with the goal of creating the slowest IDE in the history of the known universe.

          • Yes!

            Plain ASP.NET is not a framework made for modern web development.

            AJAX in ASP.NET is not really asynchronous either. As the stupid viewstate needs to be maintained between postbacks.

            • I'm glad I'm not the only one that was pissed to find out that the viewstate is still getting passed around with ASP.NET AJAX. I understand why they did it, but it's annoying and pointless. If you want to write a lean web application in ASP.NET you have to throw out all of MS's web controls and code straight HTML and http handlers.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                Actually, that isn't so bad... with the ASP.Net MVC, the Dynamic Data, and Jayrock, you have about all you need, in a set of libraries that aren't a total pain to work with. I love what Jayrock adds to HttpHandler myself.

                I love master pages, as the way they work is above and beyond what most other template systems offer. I like C# and .Net itself more than most other languages/platforms as well. I just wish that MS stopped trying to over-engineer everything for the enterprise developer. That's my big
                  • Depends how the app is designed. If you code well, it's not really that big of an issue (like most languages/frameworks, just throw more hardware at it and the load balancer should figure most of it out). Most .NET-based code/apps I've seen tend to be... unusual, and very often in ways that seriously harm scalability.

                    If you're writing a system that requires multiple servers, chances are that Win2k3 licensing costs are the least of your worries. It's not insignificant, but it's probably a pittance compare

                  • Well, if you nuke .Net sessions, and view-state you can get a lot more performance out of a single server... The more servers you use, the harder it is to maintain a release cycle, and make *SURE* they all match up. Win2k3 licensing really isn't that bad. The web edition works well, and to be honest I am not talking about cost so much, as maintaining a site with several million users on a default ASP.Net stack. Any big site that uses .Net is *NOT* using the default controls, or ASP.Net AJAX. Most are a
    • I think this is Step 1 (embrace). They have also announced Step 2 (extend... new ASP.NET controls).

      I think you know Step 3.

      • You realize that asp.net controls can USE a library without the library itself being extended, right?

      • by dedazo (737510) on Monday October 06 2008, @10:42AM (#25273831) Journal

        Because the jQuery maintainers are going to happily incorporate Windows-only modifications made by Microsoft to the library, correct?

        Because "we'll be shipping jQuery as-is, and submit patches to it like everyone else" means something weird and wacky you must have deduced ahead of us. Correct?

        Actually I'm at a loss here. Could you enlighten us as to how these evil tricksies will take place.

        • Actually I'm at a loss here. Could you enlighten us as to how these evil tricksies will take place.

          People are nervous because we seen this pattern before on a non-open source (at the time) language/library. It went like this:

          1. Incorporate JQuery into visual studio and add windows specific code to "enhance the productivity within visual studio".

          2. Books and MSDN will refer to the Microsoft extensions as cool ways to get thing done in JQuery, and people new to the software will gravitate to the Microsoft v

            • Dude, I was just pointing out WHY people are nervous, and used Microsoft's handling of Java as a template to illustrate a point.

              Not worrying about Microsoft's extension to a competitor product, is like not worrying about a certain one glove singer from the 80's babysitting. They both have a history that warrants a skeptical look on their intentions...

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        Step 3: Mess it up?

        • Step 3: Mess it up?

          I was going to say "Profit!", but we all know that has to be preceded by "???", so maybe that is Step 3.

    • Aww come on, "Troll"? That is a really miserably failed attempt at humour I did there.

      I wish comedy writers could tag their comments with a different color so it is not interpreted as serious information. Totally kills the joke if people start to believe that you ARE stupid enough to mean it. ;)

    • by soliptic (665417) on Monday October 06 2008, @10:35AM (#25273759) Journal

      I assume this is a deliberate troll because nobody could actually be that stupid. After all, you don't need to google jquery to see you have it completely backwards, it only requires reading the summary.

      In short: jQuery is not Microsoft's ripoff of anything, and they are not open sourcing it. It already WAS open source (dual MIT/GPL licensed), and it wasn't written by them. It was created by John Resig who now works for Mozilla.

      So far from being the latest example of MS's "Not Invented Here" problem, it's actually a suggestion that they may be overcoming NIH. And when you say "They could have joined the existing communities and worked with them" - that's what they did.

      If you really must come out with a standard-issue anti-MS troll, I believe the "they'll embrace, extend, extinguish it, just you wait and see" one is the correct one to use in this situation.

      Oh, and as for Prototype/scriptaculous doing it better... *shrug* well I prefer jQuery but it's obviously a matter of opinion to some extent, so if you found you prefered them (or mootools, or YUI, or whatever), fair enough. That said, your given justification is off target, jQuery has a plugin system so if you don't want a bunch of UI level stuff but just the "lower-layer stuff", that works too. Admittedly the distinction of what is lower layer and what is plugin may be slightly different between projects, and jquery core does include some animation related stuff, but still, you can't realistically imply jquery is monolithically bloated.

      *sigh* I guess I shouldn't feed the trolls.

      • by Maudib (223520) on Monday October 06 2008, @11:25AM (#25274387)

        I really doubt that this is a case where extend and extinguish is really viable or intended. Its not like jquery is some fundamental piece of open source that it's destruction would advance ms in any way, as you note there are tons of other similar active great projects.

        If they wanted to extinguish it then I doubt they would make it such a core piece of Visual Studio. It sounds to me like they finally realized how retarded visual studio was compared to what was freely available and decided to just integrate with a good existing project. If anything I think that in this specific area they plan on working with the community in a positive way.

        so at worse I think we will see some unpleasant branching or the addition of some lame IE specific code. Its a rare case where one can say kudos MS! They integrated with a good project for the right reasons.

        • I really doubt that this is a case where extend and extinguish is really viable or intended

          No, nor do I. That line was supposed to be sort dryly sarcastic. Point being, at least that copy/paste troll / knee-jerk slashbot-ism would make some basic sort of "plausible" sense given the situation, even if I don't personally think it an argument worth any real weight in practice.

      • by naoursla (99850) on Monday October 06 2008, @02:19PM (#25276357) Homepage Journal

        I am one of the developers working on javascript support in VS. I am working very closely with jquery support. Our goal is to get as many developers as possible using our tools. That means supporting libraries that web developers want to use.

          • erm... that reply wasn't me.

            I don't agree that non-open-source software is evil.

            I do believe that creating value for others is good. I also believe that I deserve a share of the value I create as a reward.

            I respect your right to give away all of the value that you create. However, that does not compel me to do the same.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      This is just one more in a long line of examples of Microsoft's "Not Invented Here" attitude problem. They could have joined the existing communities and worked with them. Open sourcing jQuery will not fix the problem -- the open source community still hates Microsoft's guts for exactly this type of behavior.

      "You speak of what you know not, O trollish one."

      jQuery was not written by Microsoft. It has been used by many web pages/applications before this announcement.

      jQuery was written by John Resig [wikipedia.org], who currently works for the Mozilla Corporation.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      parent comment is so far off base its not even funny. If you RTFA then you'd realise that:

      1. jQuery is not an MS product, and has not being bought by MS.
      2. jQuery is an open source product that they have no control over. They've explicitly stated they will not fork from the main trunk.
      3. The reason this is news is that it is going against the track record of "Not Invented Here"

      But why let reality get in the way of being able to put down MS (surprised you resisted the temptation to use a $)!

    • Um, pretty obvious that you really have no idea what you're talking about. jQuery was not created by Microsoft. Nor was it even funded by Microsoft to begin with (and probably won't be in the future). jQuery is already opensource (seeing as how it's openly available from the jQuery site).

      Secondly, I see you must be operating under the delusion that "bigger is better" - jQuery has a MUCH smaller footprint than Prototype (and, therefore, Scriptaculous. I haven't worked with either Scriptaculous or Prototype,

    • Have you ever even learned jQuery?

      Have you ever read the project founder's book? It's not from Microsoft Press. [jspro.org]

      As an open source JavaScript developer I hate IE and Microsoft just as much as the next guy. But if you're going to bash Microsoft, please keep to the facts.
    • This is just one more in a long line of examples of Microsoft's "Not Invented Here" attitude problem. They could have joined the existing communities and worked with them. Open sourcing jQuery will not fix the problem -- the open source community still hates Microsoft's guts for exactly this type of behavior.

      Just had to quote this so I can read it again later when I'm ready for some comedic relief.