jQuery is pretty great, but YUI shines in bigger projects for larger teams. The 1) module system, 2) conditional loading 3) combo loading and 4) and bias for structuring your code with pub/sub; these really really help in cases where there might be many javascript mini-apps running on the page who can't know anything about the other.
jQuery has these things too, especially recently, but YUI enforces this... for better or worse, in a more "enterprise-y" way
Mojito doesn't try to be "write-once run-anywhere." It doesn't provide any UI or device abstraction layers by itself, beyond what YUI has always done.
It's an MVC app framework, oriented towards composing modules/widgets-- aka mojits. If you want to render your stuff server-side, you can. If you change your mind, it's a pretty trivial change-- and in fact you could do it at runtime (Yahoo has a search product in beta that does this after instrumenting the connection/device speeds).
There will always be server-side only stuff, but at least you don't need to switch languages or frameworks when you decide what to do where.
A sweet spot might be an online/offline HTML5 app that uses YQL or other webservices, for which you want to provide desktop, tablet, and smartphone versions and/or native versions via phonegap or similar.
That said it's definitely not for everyone, and it's still a very young project.
These sound like reasons for Apple not to do retail stores. :)
In fact, I think Apple has lots of room to win in these areas. From TFA, think how much waste there is in cell implementations for legacy/interop-- not to mention carrier overhead-- that could be eliminated if Apple made every single device on the network?
Apple is full-stack from today's perspective. What if tomorrow's "stack" includes the towers and the complete customer billing relationship? People might say this was an obvious step along the road to e-wallet phones.
I agree this feels a little far fetched. But so did AAPL becoming the world's largest company, and switch to x86, before the fact... :)
> The possibility of making game-ending blunders is one of the main reasons I don't play competitive chess any more.
This is the point of TFA... if you want to get really good, stop blundering. Until then you're making excuses. You've chosen other pursuits "rather than to participate in activities where one foolish blunder can allow a person of much lesser ability to beat you."
You've selectively defined ability to not include things you don't think are important-- but they do matter objectively.
My reply is structured so as to initially acknowledge the main point of the article and then offer an alternative, i.e. choosing different situations/environments where minor mistakes do not have such a large effect. This is a valid strategy for "how to seem good at everything".
the "problem" isn't student tracks or free markets. it's teacher tracks. teacher unions (or monopolies) retard innovation-- and accommodate failures-- as evidenced by the quote.
