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

You might not need jQuery (2014)

youmightnotneedjquery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 241 posts

Re: You might not need jQuery (2014)

#11

Post by brundolf »

jamiesonbecker wrote: post #2

It's ironic that there's probably no bigger sales pitch for jQuery than this site. In every single example, the jQuery version is basically one or two lines of code, versus 10-15 lines for the alternative. (and the jQ version seems significantly easier on the eyes as well.) Also, jQuery supports promises and has for quite a while. This page hasn't aged well. I've come full circle and am now using jQuery again.

Worth noting is that at least in the animation case, the non-jQuery (CSS) version should perform better than the jQuery version

Re: You might not need jQuery (2014)

#12

Post by cosmotic »

bichiliad wrote: post #10
jamiesonbecker wrote: post #2

It's ironic that there's probably no bigger sales pitch for jQuery than this site. In every single example, the jQuery version is basically one or two lines of code, versus 10-15 lines for the alternative. (and the jQ version seems significantly easier on the eyes as well.) Also, jQuery supports promises and has for quite a while. This page hasn't aged well. I've come full circle and am now using jQuery again.

I think a lot of the initial appeal around jQuery was that it made querying and manipulating the DOM simple. Much of its features have been replaced by broadly-available APIs like Document.querySelector and Element.classList. Loading the entirety of jQuery just to access some of the remaining features just means you're loading JavaScript that you aren't going to use. I miss relying on jQuery because it's familiar and…

I thought a big part of the initial sales pitch was not having to deal with cross-browser compatibility issues.

Re: You might not need jQuery (2014)

#13

Post by jamiesonbecker »

brundolf wrote: post #11
jamiesonbecker wrote: post #2

It's ironic that there's probably no bigger sales pitch for jQuery than this site. In every single example, the jQuery version is basically one or two lines of code, versus 10-15 lines for the alternative. (and the jQ version seems significantly easier on the eyes as well.) Also, jQuery supports promises and has for quite a while. This page hasn't aged well. I've come full circle and am now using jQuery again.

Worth noting is that at least in the animation case, the non-jQuery (CSS) version should perform better than the jQuery version

Are you sure? AFAIR, jQuery has used native (hardware-accelerated) CSS transforms since 2014.

Re: You might not need jQuery (2014)

#14

Post by nobleach »

jamiesonbecker wrote: post #2

It's ironic that there's probably no bigger sales pitch for jQuery than this site. In every single example, the jQuery version is basically one or two lines of code, versus 10-15 lines for the alternative. (and the jQ version seems significantly easier on the eyes as well.) Also, jQuery supports promises and has for quite a while. This page hasn't aged well. I've come full circle and am now using jQuery again.

jQuery, minified and Gzipped is 30.4kb. That's completely unacceptable for my needs. This is why folks complain about bloat.

Re: You might not need jQuery (2014)

#15

Post by nobleach »

barnaclejive wrote: post #5

Someone should make a youmightnotneedspringboot.com

Well sure, you could do so much better with a small library like Vert.x (which I love). But getting an entire app framework with config/routing/db connectivity/etc is just so easy with Spring Boot. Plus, you get a vast ecosystem. Now the memory usage and compile times? Yeah, youmightnotneedspringsmemoryoverhead.

Re: You might not need jQuery (2014)

#16

Post by [deleted] »

nobleach wrote: post #14
jamiesonbecker wrote: post #2

It's ironic that there's probably no bigger sales pitch for jQuery than this site. In every single example, the jQuery version is basically one or two lines of code, versus 10-15 lines for the alternative. (and the jQ version seems significantly easier on the eyes as well.) Also, jQuery supports promises and has for quite a while. This page hasn't aged well. I've come full circle and am now using jQuery again.

jQuery, minified and Gzipped is 30.4kb. That's completely unacceptable for my needs. This is why folks complain about bloat.

[deleted]

Re: You might not need jQuery (2014)

#17

Post by jamiesonbecker »

jart wrote: post #8
jamiesonbecker wrote: post #2

It's ironic that there's probably no bigger sales pitch for jQuery than this site. In every single example, the jQuery version is basically one or two lines of code, versus 10-15 lines for the alternative. (and the jQ version seems significantly easier on the eyes as well.) Also, jQuery supports promises and has for quite a while. This page hasn't aged well. I've come full circle and am now using jQuery again.

This comment is a great example of what I call "lines of code mindset" which is form of tip of the iceberg mentality, where programmers optimize for simplicity only the code they see. Is saving 10-15 lines worth it if you need an 86.1 Kb vendor dependency? Hidden complexity you don't control is the most expensive kind I think.

> Hidden complexity you don't control is the most expensive kind I think.

That's called encapsulation. :)

Seriously, encapsulating complexity is the foundation of most programming paradigms.

Re: You might not need jQuery (2014)

#18

Post by jccalhoun »

jamiesonbecker wrote: post #2

It's ironic that there's probably no bigger sales pitch for jQuery than this site. In every single example, the jQuery version is basically one or two lines of code, versus 10-15 lines for the alternative. (and the jQ version seems significantly easier on the eyes as well.) Also, jQuery supports promises and has for quite a while. This page hasn't aged well. I've come full circle and am now using jQuery again.

It says you _might_ not need it not that you will _never_ need it. I have used the page when I'm trying to do something and would need jquery for one small thing. I don't want to use a library for one thing so 10-15 lines of code instead of all of jquery is a good tradeoff in those cases.

Re: You might not need jQuery (2014)

#19

Post by [deleted] »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #9
jamiesonbecker wrote: post #2

It's ironic that there's probably no bigger sales pitch for jQuery than this site. In every single example, the jQuery version is basically one or two lines of code, versus 10-15 lines for the alternative. (and the jQ version seems significantly easier on the eyes as well.) Also, jQuery supports promises and has for quite a while. This page hasn't aged well. I've come full circle and am now using jQuery again.

I doubt the “choose not to use jQuery” path means “never write a function to wrap up that boilerplate”. The point is that you might be able to write the equivalent function instead of pulling down a whole library. That said, optimization techniques have gotten good enough that you might be able to just let a build tool do that for you. If you really still want to use jQuery.

[deleted]

Re: You might not need jQuery (2014)

#20

Post by jamiesonbecker »

nobleach wrote: post #14
jamiesonbecker wrote: post #2

It's ironic that there's probably no bigger sales pitch for jQuery than this site. In every single example, the jQuery version is basically one or two lines of code, versus 10-15 lines for the alternative. (and the jQ version seems significantly easier on the eyes as well.) Also, jQuery supports promises and has for quite a while. This page hasn't aged well. I've come full circle and am now using jQuery again.

jQuery, minified and Gzipped is 30.4kb. That's completely unacceptable for my needs. This is why folks complain about bloat.

Are you being sarcastic?

But, either way, it really depends. If you are writing a large application and jQuery saves thousands of lines of boilerplate, then it's totally worth it. For a tiny library (which is what this page is targeted at), then it's probably overkill and you should learn how to do it manually with pure JS. Both can be true at the same time.

Post reply on HN