IMO, good.
The dependencies causes noobies loads of trouble, making it hard to scale to market.
Also, since everything is written in Javascript now, the more vanilla you can get, the better.
Bootstrap 5 will remove jQuery as a dependency
311–320 of 333 posts
Re: Bootstrap 5 will remove jQuery as a dependency
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
jQuery may be outdated from a JS point of view, but nothing beats its syntax. Nothing is as simple and straightforward.
Most of its syntax is now part of JS/DOM natively now. I think that's because of how intuitive it was. It's not cool anymore but there's little compelling reason to tear it out of existing projects other than a refactor. It still works.
I've been jQuery-less for quite a while now, but honestly I still miss it sometimes. [...document.querySelectorAll()], event binding, and quite a lot of other jQuery stuff is still a bit more verbose, even in the hippest browser environments.
Re: Bootstrap 5 will remove jQuery as a dependency
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
>90% of Jquery use cases are for websites and ajax calls 90% of what people used jquery for now is built in to browsers by default. Every dependency removed from your website is a win.
> Every dependency removed from your website is a win. Sorry that this rant is hitting you, it's nothing personal, but this is somewhat a distraction. Deliver the slim version from your own host and with an existing HTTP connection and it's just 70 KB without compressed transfer. That's very little, even on mobile. People are regularly missing to optimize images and will easily transfer 100s of KB in image overhead o…
Its not just the bandwidth spent its the extra complexity of the code base. Every framework you add is an extra thing that devs have to know and in the future there will be less and less people who know jquery.
Re: Bootstrap 5 will remove jQuery as a dependency
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now you know how everyone else felt when Apple killed the floppy.
I don't follow your logic. When the floppy was killed, there were better replacements available. There were devices just as portable, larger capacity, and faster access. It just plugged into a different port, and came in a different form factor. Switching from wired to wireless giving up performance capabilities (ex: over ear headphones vs ear buds) forcing one to recharge batteries etc is not even in the same ballpa…
You had to buy another device. You couldn't use your collection of data and programs stored on those floppies. Many questioned, "What's wrong with floppies?". And the collection of same questions being mentioned in this thread about earphones.
Re: Bootstrap 5 will remove jQuery as a dependency
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because others do bad things doesn't make it OK for you to do bad things. The biggest complain I read about is javascript downloads being so big nowadays so piling on with jQuery--or anything else--just because frameworks and other libraries are so bloated doesn't make it OK.
Look, I’ve replaced plenty of jQuery with vanilla JS. I’m totally on board for lighter, leaner pages. My point was simply that there’s this tedious cycle where people crap on the older tools and say everything is better across the board with the current hotness without actually measuring anything. There are a lot of cool capabilities we can use now but they’re only going to be better at the things you actually measur…
The "cool new stack", in this case, is native, vanilla javascript that works everywhere without downloading anything and without a need to learn someone else's library.
Re: Bootstrap 5 will remove jQuery as a dependency
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like Bootstrap but I tend to use Milligram for most stuff these days. It's an excellent starting point and easy to extend. https://milligram.io
I guess the main difference being that Bootstrap is actively maintained while Milligram hasn't been updated in 2 years.
I agree not much happens development-wise, but the project is so small and simple it doesn't need it.
All of the modules are tiny and easy (even for me) to understand.
Re: Bootstrap 5 will remove jQuery as a dependency
#317This PR is massive and represents a year and a half of work. If you look at the comments you see there are loads of browser-specific issues being fixed. IE support was dropped as they didn't feel making stuff compatible (jQuery did that for them before). The API is also incompatible; in the words of one dev: "we broke everything". As one of the commenters pointed out, a lot of stuff was copied from jQuery to make it…
so the big reason here is actually React. Whether you like it or not, the developer momentum behind React/Vue is massive. And jquery works in weird ways with React/Vue. You can still make it work, but people are choosing to go with other frameworks. so the removal is not really a "remove jquery" thing - but more of "make sure the framework javascript doesnt screw up react". For example, look at some of the earliest c…
This sounds like a valid goal as such, but I don't quite follow how this refactor will really make things better? As I understand it, it will still use the same fundamental techniques (modifying the DOM directly), just without using the jQuery API?
Re: Bootstrap 5 will remove jQuery as a dependency
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is bloated compared to using modern DOM methods. jqueery is not needed, its for the lazy and stupid, my opinion.
That's a pretty obnoxious and unfounded opinion.
You seem to be ignorant in the matter. Go learn modern DOM methods, you will understand why you are so wrong.
Re: Bootstrap 5 will remove jQuery as a dependency
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is bloated compared to using modern DOM methods. jqueery is not needed, its for the lazy and stupid, my opinion.
Homophobia? Really? 'jqueery' isn't a typo.
Yeah, every typo is homophobia if you decide it is, whatever helps you be offended kiddo.
Re: Bootstrap 5 will remove jQuery as a dependency
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's cached by every major CDN already I’ve never found this to be true any time I’ve measured, especially for mobile clients. Small caches with lots of versions and CDNs really cut into the theoretical benefits.
I wish I could find it, but I read an article a while ago that showed how CDN-cached stuff usually, well, isn't. At the very least it's not something to rely on when making decisions about payload size.
It's cached at the CDN nodes, which means quick delivery to the device.
This is much better than serving that file from your origin server, and even if you use a CDN it's unlikely that it'll match the hit rates of the public CDNs. That can make a measurable improvement, and at worse is no slower than hosting it yourself.