# Moo.fx / RJS / Rails

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/moo-fx-rjs-rails/108501>\
**Category:** Rails\
**Created:** [July 4, 2007, 6:02am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/moo-fx-rjs-rails/108501 "2007-07-04T06:02:09Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\
**Post date:** [July 4, 2007, 6:02am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/moo-fx-rjs-rails/108501/1 "2007-07-04T06:02:09Z")

</div>

Is there any available way to integrate tightly with moo.fx instead of  
Scriptalicous? I would like to try and keep the JS light and the  
moo.fxstuff looks a little nicer IMHO. My issue is getting all the  
nice  
integration that exists with scriptalicious to work in RJS and the other  
rails functions. Is this possible?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\
**Post date:** [July 6, 2007, 7:34am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/moo-fx-rjs-rails/108501/2 "2007-07-06T07:34:08Z")

</div>

It is possible no doubt. But I think it is more work than it is worth.  
You would end up practically writing every helper and component that  
uses scriptaculous again for moo.fx. If you do have too much time on  
your hands you could put your effort out to the world. But my  
experience is that neither moo.fx or scriptacolous are a big  
difference. I’ve not noticed any speed increases in using moo.fx  
instead of scriptaculous. And the fact that moo.fx alters the  
prototype library in it’s cause (AFAIK) always bothered me.

If you wan’t to use another library for effects, you might want to  
consider jQuery it works with scripaculous if you call \<script …\>  
jQuery.noConflict()