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

131–140 of 292 posts

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#131

Post by tambourine_man »

actuator wrote: post #102
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…

> IMO, React doesn't bring much to the table in this regard while adding a lot of complexity and heft. Strongly disagree with this. In any complex web application with a lot of components, specially ones where a lot of fixed components can live for a while, React is definitely a massive improvement over vanilla JS or something like Backbone which allows wild west. Imagine state coming from sockets, rest APIs etc wit…

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 to shoehorn types into it, only to later transpile it back? Not to mention JSX.

It all seems so crazy to me, but this ship has long sailed.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#132

Post by mehphp »

niftylettuce wrote: post #13

I'm a happy jQuery/Bootstrap user @ https://forwardemail.net . The site scores ~100% on Lighthouse and PageSpeed Insights and is ranked #1. Open-startup @ https://forwardemail.net/open-startup ! Completely open-source too @ https://github.com/forwardemail

From your FAQ

> No. Prices will never increase. Unlike other companies, we will never shutdown our service either.

How can you guarantee this?

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#133

Post by pqdbr »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #35
niftylettuce wrote: post #13

I'm a happy jQuery/Bootstrap user @ https://forwardemail.net . The site scores ~100% on Lighthouse and PageSpeed Insights and is ranked #1. Open-startup @ https://forwardemail.net/open-startup ! Completely open-source too @ https://github.com/forwardemail

Yes but if you’re not using the latest JS framework how do you get girls.

This. I was a happy Rails dev but html over the wire wasn’t cutting it at the club anymore. So I had to switch to React and now I’m married.

Just kidding. My wife loves Rails.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#134

Post by e1g »

megous wrote: post #127
actuator wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but redux etc gained traction with React, and together they make SPAs good.

SPAs were perfectly good before with ExtJS and similar, and more easily extensible too.

ExtJS = "What if JSX, but in JSON" ;)

For me, ExtJS redefined what's possible on the web a full decade before React/Angular & co, and it's sad that Sencha is now part of a heartless corporate graveyard.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#135

Post by andrei_says_ »

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, absolutely.

The use case: a small CraftCMS-driven site using a bunch of long-lived jquery plugins and almost no custom JS.

Also, no need for transpiring or bundling.

It is wonderful.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#136

Post by megous »

mschuetz wrote: post #80
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…

I'm trying to wean off of jQuery to reduce dependencies, but it makes me appreciate jQuery all the more. The native JS API is quite a bit more verbose and cumbersome to use, and my absolute biggest gripe with it is that it doesn't even build on modern JS features. It's not compatible with for...of, map, filter, find, etc, which seems really strange for a relatively recent vanilla JS API. Ironically, http://youmightno…

You can easily extend NodeList.prototype with Array.prototype functions you like, and then just use them:

    ['map', 'find'].forEach(f => NodeList.prototype[f] = Array.prototype[f]);

    document.querySelectorAll('bla').map(el => whatever)
That's what prototypes are for, anyway.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#137

Post by Turing_Machine »

cookingmyserver wrote: post #92
snemvalts wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no need to complicate static sites with jQuery. All it does can be achieved with vanilla.

Vanilla has always been able to do what jQuery can, otherwise jQuery wouldn't exist. It all depends on what your threshold for abstraction and verbosity is. That is going to depend on what you are doing and who you are.

Exactly.

I mean, all you really need is a Turing Machine, but they're not very pleasant to program.

Same thing with vanilla JS and jQuery.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#138

Post by shaicoleman »

rzwitserloot wrote: post #109
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…

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.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#139

Post by tambourine_man »

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...

Right you are. But jQuery is around the same size as Vue, and that's the lean alternative to React. So the “jQuery is bloat” argument still doesn't make much sense.

A single retina hero banner is larger than most JavaScript libraries/frameworks.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#140

Post by pier25 »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #33
pier25 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This caught my eye too. What could they be cooking?

My guess is a slimmed-down API with most or all support for older browsers removed, perhaps something similar to Zepto. There is still something to be said for the usability of jQuery's API for direct DOM manipulation, as opposed to the more verbose API offered by the DOM itself.

I love modern reactive frameworks, but for DOM manipulation the jQuery-style API is great.

Some problems are much easier to solve working directly with the DOM (eg: drag and drop). The problem is that you either have control over the DOM, or let someone else do it (React, Vue, etc).

Post reply on HN