191–200 of 246 posts
I'm heavily inclined to agree with this. In fact, only this weekend I was working on a very simple one page tool and from the get-go I decided to adopt this "vanilla" only approach, i.e no JS libraries really at all. Pretty quickly I found myself wishing I had just used jQuery or at least some other library to make stuff easier and get things done faster. When I finally got it completed in the end I wasn't sure why I…
> If you're developing a library on the other hand, please take a moment to consider if you actually need jQuery as a dependency.
Maybe I am mistaken but it seems to me that this site targets library developers who use jQuery without realizing that they're forcing it on users as a transitive dependency. It does not seem to apply to end-users writing simple tools.
More duplicated efforts on making reusable uis because they (React/Vue/Svelte/Elm/Ember etc) don't mean to integrate well with each other. Mostly they live their own world. Nothing integrates well with server rendering approach because most of them are based on virtual dom or compiler, vm that takes over the whole ui containers.
When you change a frontend language/lib/framework, your design system also need to change. All of your branded ui components need to be reinvented although some people just wrap libs such as Sortablejs, Select2 with their favorite js thing.
I've experiment Phoenix LiveView with a bunch of mentioned js lib/framework/language (above), nothing really integrates well for production uses. Vanilla js is still best bet for working with server-side rendered html (Unpolyjs or Stimulusjs is nice, but it only serves small purposes)
I hope there would be more js that works with good old html that you are already rendering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a lot of answers to that question, but they all summarize down to: you are the developer not the user . * Perhaps those 10 lines execute faster * Perhaps those 10 lines are exactly 10 lines, where jQuery is 2 lines plus a 65k library * Perhaps those 10 lines work equally in multiple environments (node, deno, electron, browser) where jQuery does not. * Perhaps those 10 lines sit behind a custom abstraction t…
I'm the user of the language, and JS is a bad user experience.
> In my experience server-side generated templates lightly sprinkled with “progressive enhancement”-style JavaScript are still the best way to do that. Those apps are easier to develop, tend to be faster, tend to have fewer bugs, and your laptop’s fan won’t wake the neighbours. Thanks for that part. Really. A heartfelt thank you. Every time I see another "hey, I only want to show you text, but for some reason I thoug…
It's like "Please stop enhancing stuff it's good enough" - I like to enhance stuff, yeah it has costs but you can master them. That's definitely not the end of it. I hope we will do better. Maybe your "problems" will be resolved as well!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're right, I should have been clearer. Emphasis on develop and maintain. Did you ever think that you might want to put the user experience first? Look at YouTube with their great SPA. If I'm on mobile and not using a flagship phone with 3gb of ram, it's just great: I scroll through my search results which are these idiotic incrementally loading page, then I select a video, watch it and want to go back. Surprise!…
Whether pagination is saved (like ?p=6 in url) doesn't have anything to do with SPA vs SSR. Just like an SSR /search endpoint that uses POST over GET so you can't just save/share the query. You're blaming SPA but as usual it's just people not caring about polishing application UX.
> In my experience server-side generated templates lightly sprinkled with “progressive enhancement”-style JavaScript are still the best way to do that. Those apps are easier to develop, tend to be faster, tend to have fewer bugs, and your laptop’s fan won’t wake the neighbours. Thanks for that part. Really. A heartfelt thank you. Every time I see another "hey, I only want to show you text, but for some reason I thoug…
This is the part that often gets forgotten in these discussions: it shouldn't be "SPA for everything" vs. "vanilla HTML / CSS / JS for everything"; rather, we should be using the most appropriate set of tools for the job. I've worked on simple static sites, for which I typically lean more on vanilla HTML / CSS with a sprinkling of JS as recommended here. I've also worked on heavy-lifting applications, for which the l…
On the whole, I'd say that I loved it. It is _staggering_ how quickly you can knock pages out when you're not coordinating data representations across different pieces of your app. The static-ness also lets you embrace a kind of UI feature simplicity. Does that form _really_ need live validation, or can we just pop the errors after submit? The latter is the only option unless you wanna (a) either vanilla Javascript or JQuery the interactions or (b) start shipping a React bundle down to this page. And thus, form validation was part of the request/response cycle, which further speeds up development.
It does get a little awkward when a static page starts having dynamic features begin to creep in. You have to decide when to awkwardly cut over to having that page powered by React.
That said, without a framework supporting this kind of development directly, I'm skeptical of how well it would work on a team. I did this style on a solo project, so there was no one complaining about 'mixing technologies' or bemoaning 'why don't we just use React everywhere.' I imagine that the first time we rewrote a page in SPA tech because it picked up enough UX to warrant it, people would be up in arms about how much time we've 'wasted' by not doing it in the first place.
In my experience, sooner or later you're gonna want modern functionality / user experience and you're in for a world of pain trying to hack it together with jQuery.
These days I'd only use jQuery for sites where I'm the sole developer and the project won't change much over time. Or for legacy projects where the cost of moving everything to an SPA wouldn't be worth it.
If you're not the only developer on a project and the project is liable to morph over time, jQuery will be a costly mistake.
Literally the first thing youmightnotneedjquery.com says is:
> jQuery and its cousins are great, and by all means use them if it makes it easier to develop your application.
> If you're developing a library on the other hand, please take a moment to consider if you actually need jQuery as a dependency.
I'm one of the original creators of You Might Not Need jQuery. Most of the examples still date back to 2014, with modern JS they get much simpler and shorter (the fetch API and async/await help tremendously in the first example cited).
> jQuery and its cousins are great, and by all means use them if it makes it easier to develop your application.
> If you're developing a library on the other hand, please take a moment to consider if you actually need jQuery as a dependency.