Why would I add 1.8K of possibly buggy minified code, compiled from 247 lines of possibly buggy un-minified code, to my web app, just in order to avoid having to write<p><pre><code> function after(seconds, fn) { return setTimeout(fn, seconds * 1000); }
function every(seconds, fn) { return setInterval(fn, seconds * 1000); }
var MINUTE = 60, HOUR = 3600;
</code></pre>
in my program?<p>I do like the naming and argument order better than the standard functions, but the cost-to-benefit ratio of this library seems off by two orders of magnitude, given the ability to get the same benefit in two or three lines of code instead of 200 or 300.
I'm sorry but if you can't immediately realize upon reading that 5 * 60 * 1000 is five minutes, you probebly shouldn't be trying to use window.setTimeout and definitely not window.setInterval.<p>Not every single thing needs to be wrapped in a jQuery "helper". Doing that just makes the developer using it more reliant on jQuery and less experienced/knowledgeable about straight JavaScript.
The 2 * 60 * 1000 idiom for two minutes doesn't bother me.<p>underscore.js has a nice alternative for setTimeout() and several functions that probably should be used instead of setInterval() in most cases where setInterval() is used:<p><a href="http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/#delay" rel="nofollow">http://documentcloud.github.com/underscore/#delay</a>
I use Jquery Timers to accomplish a similar goal. <a href="http://plugins.jquery.com/project/timers" rel="nofollow">http://plugins.jquery.com/project/timers</a>