Hacker News Reader

Comment by wyuenho | Hacker News Reader

I for one would love to see the plugin site stay down. There are just way too many terribly written and inflexible plugins around that are mostly reinventions of other terribly written and inflexible plugins. The people in the jQuery ecosystem really need to learn some proper OOP. At the very least, you should be able to do what the Bootstrap's jQuery plugins do - write your own UI class, wrap it around with the jQuery plugin namespace, and send a custom event for every action the class takes. No more stupid callbacks.

Having the plugin site down the past year had been a breath of fresh air. I've discovered a dozen or so truly great plugins purely by world of mouth. I can't tell you how much better this filter is than the searching and rating and commenting stuff on the old plugin site.

View on HN

If you are so against the plugins that are there (when they come back), consider contributing some better ones. It doesn't make any sense for an open-source project to not exist simply because you personally don't like the way the code is being written.

Oh you have over-estimated my power to make terrible jQuery plugins disappear. Terrible they may be, they certainly have a right to exist, they just should crowd out the really good ones on an official plugin site.

I have given up on writing jQuery plugins. Something about calling "methods" on the plugin by using a string isn't resonating with me. But since you've asked, I recently have open sourced 2 backbone projects on Github. One has reached 1.0 tho I just discovered a few bugs, another one is coming along with a first release soon.

https://github.com/wyuenho/backbone-pageable

https://github.com/wyuenho/backgrid

Maybe the GitHub requirement[0] will raise the barrier to entry? I never used the old plugin site but I'll give the new one a chance. GitHub will make reviewing plugins so much easier.

[0]: https://github.com/jquery/plugins.jquery.com#how-it-works

That sounds like a terrible idea that only the jQuery and npm people think is Ok. What if someone wants to host on their own domain and servers and review code with reviewboard? What about people using Bitbucket or other free source code repo hosts?

Reading web mags like DailyJS and Smashing magazines are probably a vastly superior way to know about high quality jQuery plugins. These mags are like the academics journals, if your plugin gets published, there's a shallower limit to how terrible it can be.

I think it's more important for jQuery to provide a more flexible module/plugin system that jQuery itself is built on. Many people are actually asking for easier ways to have their own customized jQuery builds. There are ways you can do it now, but they are pretty involved. This is one area I'd definitely like to see jQuery improve on.

> What if someone wants to host on their own domain and servers and review code with reviewboard? What about people using Bitbucket or other free source code repo hosts?

Any time developers want to be involved in a collaborative project, they generally have to conform to an agreed set of best practices. For jQuery plugins available through the plugins site, this now means using their GitHub-based system. If a developer's code is so tied to a particular set of tools that they can't make adapt to a new system, that's something they need to deal with, not the jQuery Foundation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com