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

151–160 of 292 posts

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#151

Post by lostgame »

RHSeeger wrote: post #41
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.

This. I can just prototype something so gosh darn quickly in jQuery and I'm so used to it by this point that between that and advancements in CSS it's incredibly awesome.

Why replace what's not broken?

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#152

Post by csswizardry »

sshb wrote: post #145
ivosaur wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> jQuery is ≈30k gziped and most likely already cached from CDN. This part isn't so true in reality anymore, due to revised browser caching systems[1]. Doesn't mean you shouldn't use jQuery, just that part of the benefits of a centralized CDN are no longer a factor and it's a lot more sensible to self-host. 1: https://www.stefanjudis.com/notes/say-goodbye-to-resource-ca...

Well, you are still getting less server load and faster response times across the globe, right?

> …and faster response times across the globe, right?

Unfortunately not. There is no benefit to leaving your critical files on anyone else’s infrastructure: https://csswizardry.com/2019/05/self-host-your-static-assets...

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#153

Post by lhorie »

ROARosen wrote: post #123
mkl wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

querySelectorAll returns a NodeList, which is even more limited than an array (e.g. no map or filter).

but [...querySelectorAll()] does return an array and is just as concise

but beware of ASI :)

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#154

Post by colourgarden »

shaicoleman wrote: post #138
rzwitserloot wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still use it. Still love it. Just last month I decided to toss a quite arbitrary `=>` in my javascript (I still write `function (args) { code }`), and shipped it. Immediately got a _TON_ of user complaints. Turns out, we sent a link in a newsletter, and most folks were reading those in Outlook, and that evidently just opens links internally, and that is still IE11. We don't ordinarily support IE11, but given that thi…

"Fun" fact: Outlook today still uses Word to render HTML, which is about as capable as IE3 released in 1996.

Your use of the word "still" is a little misleading. IE _was_ the default email rendering engine until 2007 when Microsoft made the inexplicable decision to move to Word 2007 instead.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#155

Post by dangerbird2 »

ivosaur wrote: post #105
tambourine_man wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do people still use jQuery? Oh yes. Everyday. Still love it. >…Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll The jQuery API is still (and probably aways will be) far superior to the native DOM (terser, composable, more expressive, etc). >…smaller footprint libraries like lodash jQuery is ≈30k gziped and most likely already cached from CDN. >…has fallen out of favor of more compreh…

> jQuery is ≈30k gziped and most likely already cached from CDN. This part isn't so true in reality anymore, due to revised browser caching systems[1]. Doesn't mean you shouldn't use jQuery, just that part of the benefits of a centralized CDN are no longer a factor and it's a lot more sensible to self-host. 1: https://www.stefanjudis.com/notes/say-goodbye-to-resource-ca...

One thing that doesn't help jquery's case is that it and its plugin ecosystem isn't modular, making it impossible to trim the code size below the minified size via dead code elimination or even es6 partial imports. It would be nice to see more fluent DOM apis like jquery, but having 1st class support for es6 modules so you can import only the functionality you need in your final bundle

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#156

Post by starik36 »

1shooner wrote: post #114
tambourine_man wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do people still use jQuery? Oh yes. Everyday. Still love it. >…Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll The jQuery API is still (and probably aways will be) far superior to the native DOM (terser, composable, more expressive, etc). >…smaller footprint libraries like lodash jQuery is ≈30k gziped and most likely already cached from CDN. >…has fallen out of favor of more compreh…

>most likely already cached from CDN. I don't believe any major browser allows sites to share 3rd party caches anymore. Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24894135

True, there is still a perf win however since CDNs are located geographically closer to a global consumer than keeping the libs on your own box.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#157

Post by rburhum »

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…

Yes. For quick small things.

When I need a to write a small web service, I usually just grab a python micro-framework and do the work. Not much complexity and not a lot of setup required. When I need to do something more elaborate that needs structure because it will get extended over time, I will take my time to setup something like Django... but it would be too much unnecessary work do to that for small web services.

The same applies to front-end.

When I need a few quick HTML pages that need some quick DOM manipulation, I usually just grab jQuery and do what we have been doing for years. Whenever I know that something will get extended over time and needs structure, that is when I take the time to setup React/Redux and all the build scripts necessary to make it work.

Just personal preference, but I am sure I am not alone...

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#158

Post by Sn0wCoder »

ivosaur wrote: post #105
tambourine_man wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do people still use jQuery? Oh yes. Everyday. Still love it. >…Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll The jQuery API is still (and probably aways will be) far superior to the native DOM (terser, composable, more expressive, etc). >…smaller footprint libraries like lodash jQuery is ≈30k gziped and most likely already cached from CDN. >…has fallen out of favor of more compreh…

> jQuery is ≈30k gziped and most likely already cached from CDN. This part isn't so true in reality anymore, due to revised browser caching systems[1]. Doesn't mean you shouldn't use jQuery, just that part of the benefits of a centralized CDN are no longer a factor and it's a lot more sensible to self-host. 1: https://www.stefanjudis.com/notes/say-goodbye-to-resource-ca...

Thanks for the article. I was just telling someone that jQuery was most likely already in the browser cache so don’t worry about it. Guess I need to go back and say I was wrong...

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#159

Post by mixmastamyk »

peterangular wrote: post #142
tambourine_man wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm exactly arguing against this Webpack, Typescript, React, etc approach to web development. I'm more productive in PHP + jQuery, a lot due to familiarity, of course, but I'm also a huge believer in a simple stack. If you've 20+ mutually dependent inputs, maybe you need a better UI, not a complex state management framework. If your browser is ultimately executing an untyped crazy dynamic language, is it worth trying…

> It all seems so crazy to me, but this ship has long sailed. Nope. And it's why Svelte is something that I've been hard adopting because it looks the closest to old-school JS/CSS/HTML while still bringing some of the same capabilities over that I love from React and VueJS. It also runs without a VDOM or a constantly running event loop - both things are incredibly attractive to me. Although it's not a perfect solutio…

Svelte has been on my list to try, thanks for the reminder. I've also liked htmx (from intercooler) for keeping complexity managed. Any comparisons?

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#160

Post by bredren »

blain wrote: post #91
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…

Well, Wordpress and Drupal still uses jQuery, they auto load it by default and there is no reason not use at this point, unless you specifically building React or some other custom thing on top of either of them.

The Django ecosystem still has a pretty strong tether to jquery. It’s a problem.
Post reply on HN