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

jQuery 3.6.0

blog.jquery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 292 posts

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#41

Post by RHSeeger »

cphoover wrote: post #6

Do people still use jQuery? I thought the biggest advantage of this library back in the day was css selector access of DOM nodes (back when we only had getElementById, getElementsByClassName, and getElementsByTagName). This has been rolled into the Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll. Also there are browser compatibility issues that jQuery solved but a lot of these are so…

It is literally the first thing I add to every personal project I build, and it's included with a lot of things I work with professionally. Jquery just makes life easier.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#42

Post by muglug »

kyriakos wrote: post #29
muglug wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot! For example, the new https://www.whitehouse.gov uses jQuery. When you just want to add a small bit of interaction to a mostly-static site, jQuery can help. There's a current trend to complicate things with a JAM stack that really don't need to be complicated. I've seen people propose something like [NodeJS/Ruby/PHP backend] -> GraphQL API -> React Frontend -> static html Where really they could have ju…

To be fair the first case is only static for the initial load then becomes a single page application

Yeah, but very few sites need to be SPAs. SPAs come with a tremendous amount of extra requirements that, over time, can mire projects in cruft.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#43

Post by Johnny87 »

niftylettuce wrote: post #13

I'm a happy jQuery/Bootstrap user @ https://forwardemail.net . The site scores ~100% on Lighthouse and PageSpeed Insights and is ranked #1. Open-startup @ https://forwardemail.net/open-startup ! Completely open-source too @ https://github.com/forwardemail

Wow 15k??? That's impressive. I use another email forwarder but haven't been happy with it, maybe I'll switch.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#44

Post by tyingq »

cphoover wrote: post #6

Do people still use jQuery? I thought the biggest advantage of this library back in the day was css selector access of DOM nodes (back when we only had getElementById, getElementsByClassName, and getElementsByTagName). This has been rolled into the Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll. Also there are browser compatibility issues that jQuery solved but a lot of these are so…

"What is the current use-case for jQuery? I'm curious from hearing it's current users answer this."

I still see it used for file upload/download, as the fetch api doesn't provide a reasonable way to show progress if the channel is using gzip or deflate. The ajax functionality is also still popular for a compact way to deal with different types of errors (app errors vs connectivity errors).

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#45

Post by cphoover »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #27
cphoover wrote: post #6

Do people still use jQuery? I thought the biggest advantage of this library back in the day was css selector access of DOM nodes (back when we only had getElementById, getElementsByClassName, and getElementsByTagName). This has been rolled into the Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll. Also there are browser compatibility issues that jQuery solved but a lot of these are so…

> This has been rolled into the Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll. Have you actually compared the two methods in a real website? It's like saying why use Ruby when you can use Java. The Javascript document API is super verbose. No thanks.

You don't have to use all of it though, right? You can choose to only only use the applicable parts: eg:

``` $('.container-element') .addClass('active');

// vs

document.querySelectorAll('.my-class-selector') .classList.add('active') ```

I use the native APIs all the time, they are not that complicated or overly verbose. Easily memorized with practice IMHO. Also they are all extremely well documented on MDN.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#46

Post by wishinghand »

laurent92 wrote: post #28
cphoover wrote: post #6

Do people still use jQuery? I thought the biggest advantage of this library back in the day was css selector access of DOM nodes (back when we only had getElementById, getElementsByClassName, and getElementsByTagName). This has been rolled into the Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll. Also there are browser compatibility issues that jQuery solved but a lot of these are so…

I never understood why people say “We’ve solved your jQuery problem” by introducing getElementsByClassName() or even querySelector(). When I come back to my older app, $(“.my-class”) is still much nicer. jQuery gets out of the way, the class gets syntax-highlighted, and .focus() can’t create an NPE.

One could also save document.querySelector to $ as a constant.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#47

Post by llimos »

jariel wrote: post #32

For those wondering, JQuery is still used on the majority of web sites in the world apparently [1] I'm not sure how the data is run, but it's quite massive share however you cut it. JQuery is still in it's foundational phase, it's still a 'core' thing, it's not remotely legacy yet. [1] https://almanac.httparchive.org/en/2019/javascript

A lot of them are probably due to Bootstrap (<5.0) bundling it.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#48

Post by Kaze404 »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #27
cphoover wrote: post #6

Do people still use jQuery? I thought the biggest advantage of this library back in the day was css selector access of DOM nodes (back when we only had getElementById, getElementsByClassName, and getElementsByTagName). This has been rolled into the Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll. Also there are browser compatibility issues that jQuery solved but a lot of these are so…

> This has been rolled into the Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll. Have you actually compared the two methods in a real website? It's like saying why use Ruby when you can use Java. The Javascript document API is super verbose. No thanks.

Conversely, looking at how you do it through jQuery after seeing how it is in Javascript gives me the same reaction.

The fact that jQuery is usually assigned to the dollar sign definitely doesn't help, especially for beginners. The amount of questions I've answered that stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of how Javascript works, all because they learned jQuery instead of Javascript, is pretty significant.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#49

Post by alexk307 »

I still believe that jQuery is the best tool for the job if you're creating a small web application and don't want to learn an entire new framework.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#50

Post by WORMS_EAT_WORMS »

niftylettuce wrote: post #13

I'm a happy jQuery/Bootstrap user @ https://forwardemail.net . The site scores ~100% on Lighthouse and PageSpeed Insights and is ranked #1. Open-startup @ https://forwardemail.net/open-startup ! Completely open-source too @ https://github.com/forwardemail

Super cool. I really like that you can also reply using this service to each individual inbox. Like a universal inbox but not married to any specific client/app. Maybe suggest making that a little more easier to learn on your marketing homepage.

For your current users, are you seeing them use this more like the demo gym owner video or for other use cases? Thanks

Post reply on HN