Prototype.js vs other JS libraries

Just heard one of the famous quotes by Richard Cornford:

Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for
people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.

But I want to know, in which area, Prototype is not comparable with
other libraries such as jQuery, YUI, Dojo, for example?

On Jun 15, 10:24 pm, Roy M <setesting... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Just heard one of the famous quotes by Richard Cornford:

Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for
people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.

But I want to know, in which area, Prototype is not comparable with
other libraries such as jQuery, YUI, Dojo, for example?

"They are junk as well" as some people did and would say here :-)

Seriously though:

Prototype.js is suggested to spell with the .js extension added as it
is extremely difficult to understand sometimes is the conversation
going about Javascript prototype issues or about a particular library.
I would position Prototype.js and jQuery as low-mid layer multipurpose
relatively lightweight libraries. They have a rather misfortune
compatibility issue caused by different $ identifier usage. With
jQuery being much younger than Prototype.js I suspect an intentional
compatibility obstacle to fight with the competitor: or maybe it is
just a jQuery programmers' negligence. Until this question is cleared
out I wouldn't suggest to base any solutions on Prototype.js and
jQuery used together.

YUI is targeted to programmed user interface extensions (drag-and-
drop, sliders, styled upload controls etc.) It is merely a set of
extension controls of different kind written as separate modules
rather than a unified library. The quality of code is high IMHO but
the compatibility with other libraries like say Prototype.js remains a
mystery.

Dojo is a top level layer for Web 2.0 corporate intranet applications
with the purpose to move as much logic as possible from server to
client side. It is a dogmatically - not to say slavery - implemented
class-based OOP emulation which often imposes productivity impact on
even most capable machines. Strictly personally I wouldn't use it
unless everything has to be flashing, moving, and overall Web 2.0'ing
for the investor's presentation with the deadline passing in the
upcoming midnight or even earlier :-) Again: IMHO.

"They have a rather misfortune
compatibility issue caused by different $ identifier usage. With
jQuery being much younger than Prototype.js I suspect an intentional
compatibility obstacle to fight with the competitor: or maybe it is
just a jQuery programmers' negligence. Until this question is cleared
out I wouldn't suggest to base any solutions on Prototype.js and
jQuery used together."

http://docs.jquery.com/Core/jQuery.noConflict

Not that im justifying jQuery developer since basically what he does
is $=jQuery,
a shortcut that anyone could do if they want and no need for
the .noConflict method,
so this seems to be an intentional compatibility obstacle.