111–120 of 458 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't get this discourse, jQuery API is much more ergonomic, concise and clearer than the DOM api. Sure you can do it but that doesn't mean you should
Just replace that one liner with a 15 liner.
And for React: https://javascript.info/custom-elements
I still use jQuery for frontend JavaScript when I can. It's so much more efficient than native JavaScript. I can't imagine anyone prefers to write document.getElementById('element').style.display = 'none' rather than $('#element').hide();
I think the more direct comparison is document.querySelector('#element').style.display = 'none' That has the same ergonomics as the jQuery selector, and is just a bit longer. I feel like with editors that autocomplete, it's not enough of a difference to warrant the extra dependency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not on an individual scale, no, but when you consider the millions of visits and views they get per year it adds up from a global / zoomed out point of view. I'm sure with some math you can make a calculation on how much bandwidth and energy was saved with this One Clever Trick.
They are missing on a lot of expert backed Jquery optimizations e.g. https://github.com/jquery/jquery/issues/3143
gov.uk doesn't have many animations anyway.
I still use jQuery for frontend JavaScript when I can. It's so much more efficient than native JavaScript. I can't imagine anyone prefers to write document.getElementById('element').style.display = 'none' rather than $('#element').hide();
I think the more direct comparison is document.querySelector('#element').style.display = 'none' That has the same ergonomics as the jQuery selector, and is just a bit longer. I feel like with editors that autocomplete, it's not enough of a difference to warrant the extra dependency.
I've never used JQuery before and would have assumed calling .hide() on an element would set the CSS attribute "visibility: hidden" rather than "display: none"
Tangential, but sometimes I see people say that jQuery is dead/failed. While it's not as popular anymore, I think that's actually the perfect evolution for it. jQuery was making up for browser API shortcomings, and now many of those shortcomings have been addressed and been incorporated into browser APIs (not everything, but quite a bit).
I really don't get this discourse, jQuery API is much more ergonomic, concise and clearer than the DOM api. Sure you can do it but that doesn't mean you should
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't; it was an improvement when BackboneJS came out so I could reason about larger scale applications, and another improvement when AngularJS came out so I could build and write tests for logical, reusable components, and another when React (especially in 2022) was there and reduced these components to simple JS functions. That said, I don't like how complicated modern day front-end development is, to the point w…
Oh god, Backbone. I absolutely hated that framework. It didn't even seem to do anything, it seemed like I had to implement all of the logic myself. Except I had to do it their way, for some reason, and practically nothing made sense. (I haven't touched it in years, though, so my memory is probably distorting my experience) I like the idea of React, just not what it has turned into. The amount of tooling that it has c…
https://javascript.info/custom-elements
I've been using them lately and I think they are the bees knees.
Tangential, but sometimes I see people say that jQuery is dead/failed. While it's not as popular anymore, I think that's actually the perfect evolution for it. jQuery was making up for browser API shortcomings, and now many of those shortcomings have been addressed and been incorporated into browser APIs (not everything, but quite a bit).
> jQuery was making up for browser API shortcomings While this is true, I can still code circles around frontend developers using vanilla JS. The decline of jQuery is mostly due to the rise of webapp frameworks like React and Vue. But if you are tasked with adding like, a button to a static webpage, jQuery is still the king.
Tangential, but sometimes I see people say that jQuery is dead/failed. While it's not as popular anymore, I think that's actually the perfect evolution for it. jQuery was making up for browser API shortcomings, and now many of those shortcomings have been addressed and been incorporated into browser APIs (not everything, but quite a bit).
> jQuery was making up for browser API shortcomings While this is true, I can still code circles around frontend developers using vanilla JS. The decline of jQuery is mostly due to the rise of webapp frameworks like React and Vue. But if you are tasked with adding like, a button to a static webpage, jQuery is still the king.
Only thing I always have to look up is how to make sure my script is executed once everything is done and not before and "ready()" is obviously easier than adding an event listener to "DOMContentLoaded". Yeah, had to look it up for the comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is .forEach() on NodeLists, so you can do stuff like this in every browser, no lib, no helper functions needed: document.querySelectorAll('a').forEach(tag => { // operate on tag })
how's browser support for something like "a:has(img[src$='.gif'])" though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just replace that one liner with a 15 liner.
document.querySelector('html') And for React: https://javascript.info/custom-elements
$('.sth').closest('ul')