oh good, maybe that will help reduce the general reliance on CDNs... (me dreaming)
Show HN: Umbrella JS, a 2.5kb jQuery alternative
71–79 of 79 posts
Re: Show HN: Umbrella JS, a 2.5kb jQuery alternative
#72Angular Ivy hello world is 2.5kb as well
That is a very early, highly experimental minimal demo from what I found...
Re: Show HN: Umbrella JS, a 2.5kb jQuery alternative
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uh? There is definitely no purposefully fake scrollbar, could you please share a screenshot and/or the device and browser you are using please? Ideally in Github as an issue: https://github.com/franciscop/umbrella/issues/new , but here is fine as well.
I believe hughes means: "when you click on an entry of the documentation, e.g. '.wrap' in the "Contents" you see a scrolling animation instead of just the entry you'd like to read." So not "scrollbar" but "scrolling" as the result of the click, on the documentation page: https://umbrellajs.com/documentation I'm one of those who have the problem with the animations in the UIs too. Believe or not some people get effect…
Ah I see, that makes sense. Unfortunately for me it's the opposite! These kind of animations helps me know where I am, if it jumps suddently without any notice I tend to not know the size/position I am in respectto the whole page.
Re: Show HN: Umbrella JS, a 2.5kb jQuery alternative
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! I have two other libraries (besides Umbrella JS) that I really care about: Picnic CSS [1] and Server.js [2]. I'll be trying to do some cleaning in my spare time, but both of those require humongous amounts of work to get to the quality level of Umbrella JS. [1] https://picnicss.com/ [2] https://serverjs.io/
Two suggestions, both slightly pedantic: 1. I went by the name and typed picniccss.com instead of picnicss.com and it didn't work. picnic-es-es does sound weird in one's head too. 2. On the website, you say '10kb' but should probably use '10kB'. The small-b is conventionally used to indicate bits and the capital-b is used to indicate bytes.
are u joking?
Re: Show HN: Umbrella JS, a 2.5kb jQuery alternative
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sidenote, everything and every web site should aggressively drop support for ie6.
Why? If your website was IE6-compatible I'd salute you. Drpping support for legacy systems is something that's done too carelessly these days. PS: I admit that it's hard to support IE6 when it's no longer supperted by MS itself.
Why would you support a legacy system that currently supports just .21% of web traffic? There is no reason to do that and you are just creating more work for yourself with very, very little payoff.
Re: Show HN: Umbrella JS, a 2.5kb jQuery alternative
#76Is anyone actually still using jQuery in a new project? I can’t think of a single good reason to do so.
As long as it is a Bootstrap dependency?
Re: Show HN: Umbrella JS, a 2.5kb jQuery alternative
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe hughes means: "when you click on an entry of the documentation, e.g. '.wrap' in the "Contents" you see a scrolling animation instead of just the entry you'd like to read." So not "scrollbar" but "scrolling" as the result of the click, on the documentation page: https://umbrellajs.com/documentation I'm one of those who have the problem with the animations in the UIs too. Believe or not some people get effect…
Ah I see, that makes sense. Unfortunately for me it's the opposite! These kind of animations helps me know where I am, if it jumps suddently without any notice I tend to not know the size/position I am in respectto the whole page.
No, I really meant that the scrollbar was broken. I wasn't clickable or draggable and was not a system scrollbar.
I'm pretty confused now, as it seems to be working.
Re: Show HN: Umbrella JS, a 2.5kb jQuery alternative
#78KB != kb.
Re: Show HN: Umbrella JS, a 2.5kb jQuery alternative
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? If your website was IE6-compatible I'd salute you. Drpping support for legacy systems is something that's done too carelessly these days. PS: I admit that it's hard to support IE6 when it's no longer supperted by MS itself.
Why would you support a legacy system that currently supports just .21% of web traffic? There is no reason to do that and you are just creating more work for yourself with very, very little payoff.
I didn’t really mean like in a new website. What I meant was that I’d salute you if you managed to keep an old document around unchanged for so long.
I wouldn’t want to build a new website for IE6. I guess you’ll have a very hard time setting up a test environment with IE6 installed.