Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

jQuery 3.0 Release Candidate

blog.jquery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 71 posts

Re: jQuery 3.0 Release Candidate

#13

Post by tonyedgecombe »

jmcomets wrote: post #10
rtpg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow compression ends up working really well for JQuery. Almost all the post-2.0 code size increases get totally absorbed.

I'm not surprised, JavaScript is compression-friendly. Usually minification brings the file size down by about a x3 ratio, and gzipping does the same. What always impresses me with jQuery is the amount of features they're able to pack in 250 Mb of uncompressed code. They've got browser events, ajax and a crapload of selectors. Compatible with most browsers. Oh and performance is nice as well. Kudos to the jQuery deve…

I think it's 250 Kb rather than Mb.

Re: jQuery 3.0 Release Candidate

#15

Post by mindcrime »

mozumder wrote: post #12

I'm finding I don't need jQuery anymore. What are the reasons people still use it?

I use it for a couple of (related) reasons.

1. A few other libraries still depend on jQuery in turn, so I find that I still usually have it available in every app I work on anyway, so I might as well use it.

2. It "just works" and I already know it, and since it's already there, anyway (see (1) above) it just makes sense to use it. IOW, I don't feel enough pain from using jQuery to justify going off and learning what combination of new ecmascript (es6? es7? es9037253223252??? ???) features and/or libraries du jour that I would need to do everything jQuery does for me now.

That said, I mostly just use it for the selectors - which I understand can be easily replaced with native features now - and the ajax method. So in reality, yeah, I probably could ditch jQuery without too much pain, excepting for (1) above, but... why bother? I don't care too much about the size, since I don't typically link in tons of javascript libraries, ad networks, etc. to kill page load times, and page bloat seems to be the biggest argument I hear against using jQuery.

Re: jQuery 3.0 Release Candidate

#16

Post by smegel »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #13
jmcomets wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not surprised, JavaScript is compression-friendly. Usually minification brings the file size down by about a x3 ratio, and gzipping does the same. What always impresses me with jQuery is the amount of features they're able to pack in 250 Mb of uncompressed code. They've got browser events, ajax and a crapload of selectors. Compatible with most browsers. Oh and performance is nice as well. Kudos to the jQuery deve…

I think it's 250 Kb rather than Mb.

I did a double take at that as well.

Imagine trying to maintain 250mb of JavaScript spaghetti!

Re: jQuery 3.0 Release Candidate

#17

Post by balac »

yread wrote: post #9
vonklaus wrote: post #2

Major Changes: .load, .unload, and .error, deprecated since jQuery 1.8, are no more. Use .on() to register listeners. jQuery.Deferred is now Promises/A+ compatible Error cases don’t silently fail Animations now use requestAnimationFrame Massive speedups for some jQuery custom selectors

Is anyone using custom selectors? quick googling only returns 5+ years old results

I use :input (https://api.jquery.com/input-selector/) occasionally

Re: jQuery 3.0 Release Candidate

#20

Post by tangue »

paradite wrote: post #19

Since I used d3.js for one project a few years ago, I have not touched jQuery ever since. d3 offers key jQuery features, but goes much more beyond that.

I've often head this and it would probably be in my next-side project. Do you have an AJAX API bundled with D3 or are you using some custom functions ?
Post reply on HN