the dom traversal/chaining in jquery is a big reason why I use it. The native API simply isnt as nice.
You might not need jQuery
201–210 of 360 posts
Re: You might not need jQuery
#202I've never liked jQuery. I use it because I am forced to. However, I will not write my own animation library, selector engine, and other helper utilities it provides.
You don't have to. Browser manufacturers wrote an animation library (CSS3 transitions & animations), selector engine (querySelectorAll) and other helper utilities it provides.
Re: You might not need jQuery
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Abstractions are meant to, well, abstract an implementation. You might very well want to abstract a native operation for a bunch of different reasons. You don't need to, but maybe you should. For example, $(el).hide() is quite more readable than el.style.display = 'none' . And I'm not even talking about the other advantages.
Its el.hidden = true; in modern browsers
The documented semantics of the hidden attribute say otherwise https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Global_att... http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/editing.html#th...
" it is incorrect to use hidden to hide panels in a tabbed dialog, because the tabbed interface is merely a kind of overflow presentation — one could equally well just show all the form controls in one big page with a scrollbar"
Re: You might not need jQuery
#204I don't know if i need jQuery or not But your page is seriously a great "Cheat Sheet" for all jQuery Learners out there ! Thanks
My favorite part is how I learned that I don't need to use `var`—I can make everything global!!
Re: You might not need jQuery
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
More to test than you thought. That just broke more than 20% of the Android installed base, since Android 2.3 doesn't work with classList.
A classList polyfill is like 500b compressed. No need to blow a non-existent problem out of proportion. https://github.com/remy/polyfills/blob/master/classList.js
...Which is an argument in _favor_ of jQuery.
You silly goose!
Re: You might not need jQuery
#206Boy, these snippets are really cool! Some of them are a bit longer in vanilla JS, though, so I think I'll wrap them in a utility of helper functions.
Oh wait -- that's what jQuery is!
Re: You might not need jQuery
#207No, please no. If size is an issue for some reason or you want to have no dependencies you can use something like http://zeptojs.com/ and just embed everything in one minified file. If you do things right only the functions you are actually using will get placed in there as well. Do not reinvent the wheel to solve problems that can't be solved in much cleaner and nicer ways. Managing dependencies can be annoying, but…
In particular, as I looked at the IE8+ list, Many of the 3-4 line plain old js lines were 1 line in jQuery.
When writing web apps, brevity counts for a lot.
Re: You might not need jQuery
#208It's odd, but after reading everything and the examples at the end, I feel we need jQuery more than ever. Kind the opposite of the OP is stating. Great post though.
great content, terrible opinion. I like your take on the article.
Re: You might not need jQuery
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the point is that many libraries use about 1% of jQuery. That hardly justifies pulling in the entire thing. A personal anecdote: I recently un-jQueried a little piece of code and ended up with only a couple lines of extra code. Certain parts of jQuery are heavenly and well worth it, but really basic usage doesn't actually save that much. $("#something") instead of document.getElementById("something") is not…
I agree with the overall message- you should be thoughtful with all your dependencies. You should only add complexity when it makes sense. However, the author goes beyond just selector vs. getElementById(). Does the way the author uses XMLHttpRequest work in other browsers the way it works in IE? I honestly dont even remember anymore. How about the code for fade? I never even knew the details of this feature. And I'm…
Considering XMLHttpRequest is what other browsers used before IE caught up, I assume it does work the way you'd expect across modern browsers. I'd have to check the standard and IE8+'s conformance to the standard to be sure. That's what this post is really about for me, reminding that modern browsers follow a standard that allows for getting rid of most of jQuery. Reading it also made me recall a post from 2005 by PHP's creator: http://rajshekhar.net/blog/archives/85-Rasmus-30-second-AJAX... (Note IE uses ActiveXObject.)
Re: You might not need jQuery
#210No, please no. If size is an issue for some reason or you want to have no dependencies you can use something like http://zeptojs.com/ and just embed everything in one minified file. If you do things right only the functions you are actually using will get placed in there as well. Do not reinvent the wheel to solve problems that can't be solved in much cleaner and nicer ways. Managing dependencies can be annoying, but…
I believe the point is that many libraries use about 1% of jQuery. That hardly justifies pulling in the entire thing. A personal anecdote: I recently un-jQueried a little piece of code and ended up with only a couple lines of extra code. Certain parts of jQuery are heavenly and well worth it, but really basic usage doesn't actually save that much. $("#something") instead of document.getElementById("something") is not…
It might be the most cached file on the internet. Pulling jQuery is hardly expensive. Especially if you're pulling it from the google cdn.