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

jQuery 3.0 Released

jquery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 164 posts

Re: jQuery 3.0 Released

#141

Post by wvenable »

lucb1e wrote: post #131
jerf wrote: post #77

I would suggest the release notes are a better link target: http://blog.jquery.com/2016/06/09/jquery-3-0-final-released/ Developers can figure out how to download it if they are interested.

> "We set out to create a slimmer, faster version of jQuery (with backwards compatibility in mind)." Wait, isn't the whole point of a major version bump that it breaks backwards compatibility? Later on it says there are a few breaking changes, but not many apparently. Which in general is a good thing, but focusing on keeping compatibility through a major version bump seems silly.

A some point if you break too much compatibility, it just becomes a completely different product instead a new version of an existing product.

Re: jQuery 3.0 Released

#142

Post by smt88 »

rcarmo wrote: post #53
Jgrubb wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are ways to do it for sure, but imagine if there was just One Obvious Way To Do It.

Don't get me going on Python in the browser... :)

1) There's certainly not "one way" to iterate in Python[1], and they're not even consistently named (xrange is the iterator version of range, but izip is the iterator version of zip).

2) You can use Python in the browser[2][3][4 sort of].

1. https://youtu.be/OSGv2VnC0go?t=3m20s

2. http://transcrypt.org

3. http://pyjs.org

4. http://www.rapydscript.com

Re: jQuery 3.0 Released

#143

Post by [deleted] »

nailer wrote: post #133
jacobr wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, we do, since Chromium 51. See https://dev.opera.com/blog/opera-38/

Yeah you're right. Just updated stable Chrome and: NodeList.prototype.forEach forEach() { [native code] } Thank. God. Finally. Edit: HTMLCollection.prototype.forEach (which is what you'll get from other vanilla JS methods) is still missing.

[deleted]

Re: jQuery 3.0 Released

#144

Post by asimuvPR »

awestroke wrote: post #2

Is anybody in the HN crowd still using jQuery for new projects? If yes, why not use "vanilla" js?

1. Yes.

2. Because jQuery provides a documented, backwards compatible, and stable API that works across multiple platforms.

Re: jQuery 3.0 Released

#145

Post by dceddia »

bradly wrote: post #140
lucb1e wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We set out to create a slimmer, faster version of jQuery (with backwards compatibility in mind)." Wait, isn't the whole point of a major version bump that it breaks backwards compatibility? Later on it says there are a few breaking changes, but not many apparently. Which in general is a good thing, but focusing on keeping compatibility through a major version bump seems silly.

Backwards compatibility is still quite important in major version releases. Just look at Angular 1 to 2, Rails 2.3 to 3, and Python 2 to 3 to see examples of this.

I'd say (and probably this is what you meant) that those are examples of what happens when backwards compatibility is broken - the community gets fragmented, finding answers on StackOverflow gets more difficult, lots of helpful blogs/articles/videos are now useless, etc.

Re: jQuery 3.0 Released

#146

Post by rhizome »

lucb1e wrote: post #131
jerf wrote: post #77

I would suggest the release notes are a better link target: http://blog.jquery.com/2016/06/09/jquery-3-0-final-released/ Developers can figure out how to download it if they are interested.

> "We set out to create a slimmer, faster version of jQuery (with backwards compatibility in mind)." Wait, isn't the whole point of a major version bump that it breaks backwards compatibility? Later on it says there are a few breaking changes, but not many apparently. Which in general is a good thing, but focusing on keeping compatibility through a major version bump seems silly.

Wait, isn't the whole point of a major version bump that it breaks backwards compatibility?

It's not a requirement.

P.S. HN users sure are big on silent downvotes these days.

Re: jQuery 3.0 Released

#148

Post by dang »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #91
jerf wrote: post #77

I would suggest the release notes are a better link target: http://blog.jquery.com/2016/06/09/jquery-3-0-final-released/ Developers can figure out how to download it if they are interested.

That was submitted yesterday and flagged as a dupe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11871658

It was a dupe, as is the current post. I explained this at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11872457.

Perhaps we should stop having major discussions when things come out as release candidates, so that we can have the major discussion on actual release? I don't know. Trying to make it work that way might just cause more problems.

Re: jQuery 3.0 Released

#149

Post by kej »

porker wrote: post #125
wmonk wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it all or nothing? We've been replacing certain parts of our vanilla js application with small React apps and it's worked brilliantly. There is a really good talk by Ryan Florence where he replaces backbone components (i think) with React components.

> Why is it all or nothing? Erm, because that's the impression I've got from the tutorials and demos. I guess a "Add $Framework to a bit of your app" isnt' sexy: the ones I've seen add their own routing and focus on SPAs. Rather than "Here's some incredibly complicated information to display, and we need to be fairly interactive over it (and how other data on the page affects it)". Would it work if you didn't have a…

You're right that most tutorials dive in with both feet, but this is literally the very first text on https://facebook.github.io/react/

>Lots of people use React as the V in MVC. Since React makes no assumptions about the rest of your technology stack, it's easy to try it out on a small feature in an existing project.

Post reply on HN