@meteor Thanks for the feedback. I’m sorry you don’t like Carabiner. I’ll certainly take some of the criticisms you’ve provided into account in the future. However, you certainly don’t need to use Carabiner. If it’s not for you, don’t use it. As you mentioned, there are other options available. If you don’t like those, you can certainly write your own.
I would like to respond to a few points.
it would be much better if library used config file.
This is something I’m considering for a future release. I modeled the current config setup after the several of the older libraries by Elliot Haughlin. As I’ve said before, I think a config file is overkill in this instance. However, I can certainly see it being useful.
writitng configs in a cnstructor function is just asking for troubles
There is no configuration in the Carabiner constructor. The configuration happens with a separate config function.
Next ... Your functions are too elaborate
I assume your talking about the display function. I agree wholeheartedly. That’s on my list of things to redo. I’m optimizing Carabiner as I add functionality.
I come from ruby world, and my opinion is that, function should do one thing, no data types checking,
The only data type checking is in the js and css functions. The only reason I do this is to allow arrays or arrays of arrays to be passed to these functions. That way, the library adapts to how the developer wants to use it. This is customization over convention, in opposition to the rails mentality of convention over customization. The extra overhead, in my opinion, is negligible, particularly compared to the functionality gains.
libraries should not mix php and html
I assume now that your talking about the _tag function. That’s not really mixing PHP and HTML. That’s PHP writing HTML. Is there a better way to do it? I’m open to ideas.
Next. no tests are provided with your library, why ?
I’m truly not sure what you’re talking about. Can you give me an example?
All in all this library presents not much value to me, there is a lot of code in it but not much is attained with it…I think this library is not much better than the assets helper
I’m sorry you feel that way, but there’s a simple solution: don’t use it.
Thanks again for the feedback. You might also check out the newer (1.2) version of Carabiner.