- Performance: It's about half of Underscore.js on Webkit[1], so it's not so horrible, and has yet to be optimized at all (such as by using document fragments, etc.)
- Readability: The JS statement here is only long to show a unified example. Since the inputs and outputs of each call are DOM nodes, everything is trivially composable, something not possible with XML/CSS.
- Error recovery: Yes, having seen the error output of things like LESS, I see this as a feature.
- Namespacing: Absolutely agree. I think this is best solved the way jQuery and other libraries do it: pollute by default, and then let the developer "opt out" using noConflict.
Comments
These are definitely good concerns.
- Performance: It's about half of Underscore.js on Webkit[1], so it's not so horrible, and has yet to be optimized at all (such as by using document fragments, etc.)
- Readability: The JS statement here is only long to show a unified example. Since the inputs and outputs of each call are DOM nodes, everything is trivially composable, something not possible with XML/CSS.
- Error recovery: Yes, having seen the error output of things like LESS, I see this as a feature.
- Namespacing: Absolutely agree. I think this is best solved the way jQuery and other libraries do it: pollute by default, and then let the developer "opt out" using noConflict.
[1]: http://jsperf.com/underscore-vs-domo/