From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


I have a real problem with this article. The wording reads like it was written by a programmer, i.e. it doesn't make any sense to the rest of us. Please don't use acronyms, it makes it impossible to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerseymint (talkcontribs) 22:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The introduction reads like an advertisement, a bit of a problem. Fun?

You're right, anonymous person. I tried to fix it up a bit. I hope it's better now. Still needs more work. Dynamic1 (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The benefits section looks a bit pov-ish. Towel401 (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed up the text before the list of benefits to not refrence other libraries at all. Should be neutral now, I nominated it as such. Ericvicenti (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It still needs work - there are no sources (other than from the developers) to establish notability. There are a number of claims made in the text which look like advertisement, especially the lede (things like "modular", "compact", "extensible" all require some substance) Tedickey (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
What kind of sources would you like to know? Or even better question, what in this article you see as a lie? --CONFIQ (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Not all advertisements are lies (beside the point - I can recall claims of "modularity" by people who were unfamiliar with the concept behind the term). To give the statement some substance, an example of how modular the software is, how extensible (to say nothing of the "compact", "robust", etc., sprinkled on the topic ;-) Tedickey (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It does read a lot like an advertisement, giving opinions and extra words that don't read like a proper article. Consider "Every major JavaScript framework has its philosophy, and MooTools is interested in the language known as JavaScript in all of its expressive power. And this power is accomplished in a way that is intuitive to a developer coming from a classical inheritance-based language like Java with the MooTools Class object." Even the tone of statements like "Think of it like having a set of..." don't read well at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frug (talkcontribs)

I've gone through and cleaned up what you describe, moving the latter aside to a footnote. I also tried to better organize the article and standardize formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Short of using MooTools at work, I have no ties to the framework, but I can assure you that I see nothing here that is inaccurate, and I do think the article is getting much cleaner in terms of taking a more informative and less subjective tone. Mrrena (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than move the promotional content regarding Newton's book to a footnote, it probably should simply be deleted. The topic still reads (and is sourced) as if it is written by the MooTools developers Tedickey (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
My complaint is only the tone of the article. As for sources, what else are you going to use? MooTools isn't a huge framework--JQuery unquestionably has a bigger base--and there's only one or two books on the subject. These books happen to be written by devs at MooTools: who else would write them? So how're you gonna get around the sourcing? You don't want the entry to sound like a plug, and I can appreciate that. But there's no better firsthand source, in my opinion, than the people who actually developed the project. I would think they would know more about and care more about the project than anyone else. And in any case, there really aren't any other firsthand sources. The big thing is that a person needs to go back through and try to make the article purely informative, removing any promotional elements. But referencing Aaron Newton's book? That's the number one source on the framework. What other options would you like to see? What other options do you even know about?
The topic as written appears to be the work of the developers of MooTools. If there's no better source than that, it should be trimmed down drastically to reflect the absence of independent comments about the topic Tedickey (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Latest release[edit]

Isn't 1.2 still beta? (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC) 1.2 is out of beta. Something else: when was this first released? I want to know the time frame of the history of MooTools. (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. 1.2 is out. …And should have been named MooTools 2.0 as there is a lot of incompatibility between 1.11 and 1.2 , the Ajax part very used in web 2.0 has been rewrited (for good) making updating a heavy step. Lacrymocéphale 17:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As of October 29th, 2010 version 1.3 of the Core package and v1.3 of the More package are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC) lkjkkhgghdfdjhfsdsss — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)