

Do you keep your own javascript "standard lib"? - blhack

And if so, what is in it?<p>What I mean is a .js file full of functions that you commonly use, and include in every project.  Right now, I'm building myself one, and so far have stuff like:<p>A basic function for loading an external JSON.<p>A function called "modal", pops a jquery superbox.<p>A function called "chomp", which removes trailing newline characters from a string.<p>What I'd really love, however, is to also be able to include an "init" function that:<p>A) Loads necessary "helper" js, like jquery, jquery-ui<p>B) Loads necessary "helper" css, like css for jquery-superbox
======
dhaivatpandya
Underscore.js is my standard lib.

~~~
zoowar
Underscore makes me wonder if people really understand JS.

~~~
c_t_montgomery
What do you mean by this? Typical _.js users don't really understand
javascript?

I ask because I feel like _.js is a fantastic library that I've been using in
almost every project of mine since first trying it out. I've really grown to
like it, but am interested in what you mean by your comment.

~~~
kls
I don't know the grandparents reasoning for the statement but if I where to
assume, it would be that many of the popular implementations support much of
the functionality natively. If which it may be that the grandparent is not
considering the case that many use underscore as a polyfill to support such
functionality on a broader array of clients that may or may not support the
functionality of underscore natively. The grandparent may have other reasoning
but that would be my first guess.

