(29) [Avatar] Offline
Sorry guys but another rude remark:

It seems you are familiar with the following pattern in this book : How to explain something in 4 steps.

Step1 :
Let us explain one method of doing the task:
bla bla bla

Step2 :
step1 is good for learning but bad in real scenario. Let us explain you another way of doing the same task:
bla bla bla

step2 is good but only in limited scenarios. Let us explain a better way of doing the task:
bla bla bla

We, at Disqus, prefer the following way to make the task. Our method covers scenario described in step1, step2 and step3 and also covers all other scenarios.
Let us explain the right way of doing the task :
bla bla bla

I suggest that you refactor this pattern to the following pattern : How to explain something in 1 step with 3 possible variants

We, at Disqus, implements the UI using the following pattern : one <script> element and many <div> elements using the data-* mecanism as anchors to dynamically inject our UI .
This pattern solves such and such problem and has the following advantages : ...
Tip1 : you may use document.write as an alternative to this pattern; compare pros and cons (relative to your main pattern)
Tip2 : you may use only script element using the data-* and no div; compare pros and cons (relative to your main pattern)
tip3 : If the UI should be injected only once, you could use this simpler pattern (one script and one div with Id attribute) : compare pros and cons (relative to your main pattern)

Best regards
Henri d'Orgeval
benvinegar (68) [Avatar] Offline
Re: 3.1.1 to 3.1.4
Hi Henri,

That's a valid criticism. But I think this doesn't consider that usually the first solution we present is usually the simplest. We could start off with "the one true way", and later look at other alternative solutions (that may or may not be advised), but we'd be going backwards in terms of difficulty. Also, we often introduce concepts that are easier to explain when we're scoped to a simpler solution – and I feel that's beneficial to the reader.