Microsoft Adding jQuery To Visual Studio 67
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."
And We'll Discuss It Again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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?)
Re:And We'll Discuss It Again! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
It's just one more VS thing to get in the way when I push F1 on the "class" keyword in VC++ to look up some obscure syntax.
You'd think MSDN would be capable, in an intuitive manner, of putting the C++ stuff first, since I pushed F1 editing a .cpp file in a .cpp project.
But no, I have intermingled all obscure uses of the word in Java, SQL, VBA, this or that server scripting language, Foxpro, Access, .NET framework, and the secret language only identical twins understand.
So heave this one into the mix too. W
Dupe (Score:1, Insightful)
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)
(Yes I read *all* post before posting this - so your revenge will have to wait)
Re:Dupe (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He might have posted sooner, too, but Slashdot has this stupid "You only hit reply X seconds ago!" bullshit.
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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I love master pages, as the way they work is above and beyond what most other template systems offer. I like C# and
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you know Step 3.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that asp.net controls can USE a library without the library itself being extended, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft incorporating Open Source? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Your first point invalidates the remainder, since this is a JavaScript library. What exactly "Windows-specific" do you figure Microsoft will introduce into jQuery? There's already a ton of code to deal with IE's shortcomings, so that doesn't count.
Besides, assuming for just a minute that your scenario is correct, the net result is that a bunch of Microsoft developers are better off and everyone else who uses jQuery is no worse for it. Nobody wins, nobody loses.
Re: (Score:2)
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:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Step 3: Mess it up?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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. ;)
and it is still good news (Score:1)
Slashdot - release twice - read once (Score:2)
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)
I think read once is optimistic.
Next new feature (Score:2, Funny)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:Yet another Microsoft ripoff (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Yet another Microsoft ripoff (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Yet another Microsoft ripoff (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:1)
So you're waiting for the rapture, when you'll hunt down and execute all "M$" employees and collaborators? *snort*
Did you really lose your job [slashdot.org] twitter? You seem angrier and angrier lately. Certainly missing that singsong [slashdot.org] voice of yours.
Or are you just increasingly frustrated because you finally managed to ruin the last of your 14 accounts and can't troll Slashdot effectively anymore? Maybe it's time for a new tactic. Shil
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)
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 $)!
Re: (Score:1)
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,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Just had to quote this so I can read it again later when I'm ready for some comedic relief.
Product Placement (Score:1, Insightful)
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!".
Re: (Score:1)
google it
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
In your interactive advertiser dreams.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Embrace ignorance! It's what you do best.
jQuery rocks, no comment on Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
eclipse/netbeans (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there any similar effort toward building eclipse/netbeans/??? IDE's for jquery?
Re: (Score:1)
It supports a range of serverside platforms too (ruby, python, php etc).
Is that the kind of thing you're thinking of?