You might not need jQuery
youmightnotneedjquery.com
You might not need jQuery
1–10 of 360 posts
Re: You might not need jQuery
#2Makes me think of: http://vanilla-js.com/
Re: You might not need jQuery
#3I understand the desire for people to make pages like this (this isn't the first), but the examples are not completely honest with themselves, in my opinion.
One of the biggest benefits jQuery introduces is the concept of treating single selections and multiple selections identically. While using jQuery, I can emit a $(".class").hide() call, which will apply to all elements with the matching class. Simple and elegant.
However, using native JS as the page suggests, I will need to construct a loop within my function, especially if I'm using the DOM supported getElementsByClassName method, returns a pseudo-array of DOM nodes which don't have the style method available on them. You'll notice the examples already assume a selected element and leave much of this heavy lifting out.
Furthermore, jQuery offers the selection simplicities of Sizzle (ie: "#div .container .item). To do the same selection process in vanilla JS, I'll need to nest 2 getElementsByClassName functions in a getElementByID function, and return the concatenated results from each potential .container. That is to say nothing of more complex selectors.
So yes, if you're addressing the absolute simplest form of selection, this works, but otherwise I don't think it's really presenting the situation honestly.
Re: You might not need jQuery
#4You can count on one hand the number of jQuery features that most developers incorporate into their projects. E.g.:
- Setting or getting css attributes - Querying the DOM - Manipulating and walking through arrays
Each of these features can be replicated with fewer than 10 lines of code.
Re: You might not need jQuery
#5Chaining and implicit iterators.
Re: You might not need jQuery
#6https://cloudup.com/cSLcmVC5F9h <--- Def not a good example. hehe
Great website, though.
Re: You might not need jQuery
#7I understand the desire for people to make pages like this (this isn't the first), but the examples are not completely honest with themselves, in my opinion. One of the biggest benefits jQuery introduces is the concept of treating single selections and multiple selections identically. While using jQuery, I can emit a $(".class").hide() call, which will apply to all elements with the matching class. Simple and elegant…
This is actually a great example of the purpose of the site. Since IE8, browsers have supported a native 'sizzle-style' element querying syntax: http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/#finding_elements
IE9 and later also support a native each. You are correct however that you'd have to use Array.prototype.each.call, because the NodeList is not a real array.
Re: You might not need jQuery
#8I understand the desire for people to make pages like this (this isn't the first), but the examples are not completely honest with themselves, in my opinion. One of the biggest benefits jQuery introduces is the concept of treating single selections and multiple selections identically. While using jQuery, I can emit a $(".class").hide() call, which will apply to all elements with the matching class. Simple and elegant…
It sounds like you're looking for the querySelector and querySelectorAll methods: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Document.qu...
Re: You might not need jQuery
#9There are many things you don't need to do. I'll take the time saved in development over cutting out an extra framework.
Re: You might not need jQuery
#10Yeah, I don't have to wear shoes outside, but the alternative is very destroyed and useless feet. Maintaining my boots is far less work than curing my hurt feet.