Probably one of the nicest features so far is the download page. Select the components that you need and dependencies will automatically be calculated for you. You also have a choice between compressed and non-compressed versions for download.
That aside, some of the things they mention include an updated Class system that more closely relates to Dean Edwards' Base; Element methods automatically available through $('id'), something that is in the recent Prototype builds already; chainable methods allowing things like $('el').addClassName('foo').removeClassName('bar'), which is already in JQuery and has made its way into Prototype; and a new effects system, making it easier to add simple effects to elements.
The Moo team pride themselves on compactness and this library seems to do just that getting the full library compressed down to 20k. That's including features like Ajax and drag and drop.
With no demos and little documentation, it'll take a bit for mootools to gain any traction. Plus, with the popularity of JQuery and Prototype, and especially with recent changes to Prototype which introduced things like chainable methods, will mootools be able to make a name for itself?
Update: If you're interested, I took a little time to put together a drag and drop example using mootools.
I think so - there are still a _lot_ of folks just getting on board, and as they peruse the landscape of options, moo is pretty persuasive with the small footprint and friendly access (e.g. I'm still never sure where to look for the latest Prototype). With their clean, Prototype-lite feel, if they get some killer docs I think they'll do swimmingly.
The most important thing to do with a new release of this kind is to impress to possible users. And the easiest way to do that is impress them with nice, good looking demos. To write that demos will be available later is like shooting yourself in the foot. I'm not sure if I ever is going to visit that site - I got prototype/scriptaculo.
I'm one of those "just getting on board" folks. Without examples and documentation, as much as I'd like to I can't consider starting with this.
The faster they can get that out the more traction they'll get. Chances are I'll stick for a long time with the first framework I learn to use.
Emil, I think I would disagree. Yes, usually not being prepared to show demos can make it hard to get people using it, especially if your unknown but I think people already know of moo.fx and mad4milk folks that made it. Therefor their reputation of keeping things small and quick will keep people coming back.
I also think that taking your time and getting things right (such as demos) would be better than to rush demos out the door and be a little buggy. Buggy demos is a great way to turn people off and shoot yourself in the foot.
I really enjoy moo.fx together with the prototype.lite package.
This is surely the right step to do for them.
For Emil, and many other people using the full prototype and scriptaculous: How big is all of that together? I thought we're talking somthing like 60k for prototype alone. Since when is filesize and dependencies of a webpage not an issue any more?
Just because I have broadband doesn't mean that I'm happy to wait the same time per page that I did back in 2002 with ISDN.
Of course, it's cached and all, but if I find something that's 20k instead, that does all I need... that's probably the smarter choice, or am I wrong here? I guess I could answer my question myself by pointing out the "it does all I need". So what can scriptaculous do, that the moo.tools can't?
overtype: I agree, why rush things. Let the demo and documentation part of a project take it's time - then release it.
Matthias: Size does matter, but I don't think the majority of web developers care - and that was what I described with myself as an example. I'm using scriptaculous and prototype because I know how to use it and I don't have time to learn the same thing over again, I want to put my time on projects/clients to earn money.
But If I hade time, I would like try it out , of course.
moo.fx was really easy to get your feet wet with and it is IMHO completely free of bloat which I think in itself deserves praise. 2 thumbs up!
Disregard for file size is really annoying.
Take some of these new Ajax startpages for example. Waiting nearly 10 seconds for my homepage to load on a broadband connection is totally unacceptable. And with home broadband penetration about 50% in the U.S. (according to The Bandwidth Report), hundreds of millions of dial-up users are alienated right of the bat.
I'm eagerly anticipating the demos for this library.
Moo is absolutely where it's at. And if you need to add dynamic content to a static site without the overhead of a 200K download moo really is the only option.
Being a dedicated moo.fx guy I've already given mootools a good run through. There are definitely some issues to iron out, but some of new constructs they've added are truly inspired.
It may be the most inspired 20K of code that I've ever seen.
enjoy it and look forward to
Other than that, I think that mootools definitely deserve some attention due to the fact that moo.fx is compact and impressive. I would only expect the same kind of taste by mootools!