undefined

points

by troupo171 days ago |

comments

by jraph171 days ago|

[-]

jQuery's scope is broad¹. It has at least:

- a plugin system

- its custom selector parser (because it had it before querySelector and is not totally compatible with it)

- its abstraction to iron out browser differences (old IE vs standard, notably) that's not relevant anymore

- its own custom (DOM) event management

- its implementation of methods that are now standard (ajax & trim for instance)

I recognize that the DOM API could be better, and comes with friction. Back then, ironing out the browser differences and its selector feature were killer features of jQuery. Today, I do not think the quirks of the DOM API warrant importing a library like jQuery.

¹ but indeed, very lightweight compared to modern frameworks like Angular, React and Vue, with all the ecosystem which comes with each of them (react-router, redux, etc).

by lofaszvanitt170 days ago|

parent|

[-]

quack quack quack... why reinvent the wheel, why not adopt a good, working system, why the need to do everything in a complicated way? give resig a big black suitcase full of money and implement his complexity reduction framework called jQuery into the standard. And fire the standards guys in the process, because what they do is shit. they most presumably never worked extensively with the shit they produce.

by jraph170 days ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm not advocating complicated, I'm advocating lightweight. We should not be importing libraries left and right for our convenience to the detriment of the user.

If you are going to use many features of jQuery, then it makes sense to use it, but if it's only a matter of writing one or a with wrappers, then jQuery is overkill.

I don't have a strong opinion on the proposal described in the article.