Querystrings are a server-side convention for URLs containing parameters -- the browser doesn't traditionally parse them. If you ask for document.location.search, you'll get back an opaque string containing the query part that you'll have to parse yourself.
The point of Backbone's router is to be able to transparently support both pushState-based routing, with real URLs, as well as onhashchange-based routing, for older browsers that can't do real URLs via JavaScript. So, if you add querystring generation and parsing support to Backbone's router (as some plugins do), and use pushState, everything starts off looking peachy. But as soon as you run into an older browser, and try to fall back to the hash-based URL equivalent, you run into trouble:
/app?query=string#home?query=other
I'd be more than happy to merge an implementation that supports them -- but that implementation needs to solve this particular problem, and have a relatively bulletproof way of supporting the querystring logic parsed out of real URLs and transferred to the fragment, and vice-versa ... and also has to have a strategy for dealing with URLs of the above breed. The devil, as always, is in the details.
Not really:
if hashMode and queryStringInHash
parseQueryStringFromHash
else
parseRealQueryString
Not impossible by any means, but, as Jeremy points out, it involves subtle details :)
var querystring = {};
//add actual querystring (prior to #) parameters
//add hash's querystring, overwriting any already defined keys
return querystring;
This is your opinion--why should it rule the way a browser works for everyone? I think hover navigations are annoying--should Chrome break those too?
Another bad sign is that he also removed lo-dash (a better underscore.js clone, that fixes several issues, is faster, passes all the same tests AND also strives to support Backbone.js) from the backbone docs.
My problem isn't with the Lodash project, just with the unfortunate fact that the maintainer has had some incredibly toxic behavior with respect to cooperating around open-source. Without getting into details, as soon as he's ready to collaborate in a pleasant and productive fashion, he's welcome to have his commit access back to Underscore, and merge in whatever he likes.
It's unfortunate he's chosen to spread FUD instead of going head to head on features, compat, perf, dev needs/concerns, or any other relevant area of project comparison :/
Had I known, I wouldn't say that. Perhaps an open statement from you regarding the issue would help (this HN thread will be lost to the depths of the intertubes after a few days, and it doesn't give more details of what transpired).
Built using patterns from this Backbone.js example: