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

161–170 of 292 posts

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#161

Post by dragonwriter »

colourgarden wrote: post #154
shaicoleman wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fun" fact: Outlook today still uses Word to render HTML, which is about as capable as IE3 released in 1996.

Your use of the word "still" is a little misleading. IE _was_ the default email rendering engine until 2007 when Microsoft made the inexplicable decision to move to Word 2007 instead.

Outlook is part of Office; Word is part of Office.

IE, and now Edge, is a different business unit.

Not inexplicable at all. NIH doesn't only apply at corporate boundaries.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#162

Post by tambourine_man »

peterangular wrote: post #142
tambourine_man wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It all seems so crazy to me, but this ship has long sailed. Nope. And it's why Svelte is something that I've been hard adopting because it looks the closest to old-school JS/CSS/HTML while still bringing some of the same capabilities over that I love from React and VueJS. It also runs without a VDOM or a constantly running event loop - both things are incredibly attractive to me. Although it's not a perfect solutio…

I saw the Svelte presentation a few years ago when it was released and my jaw hit the floor hard. That was some cool radical thinking. I haven't used it beyond playing with a few examples, so I can't really tell for sure if it holds up. Everything looks great on the demos.

Unfortunately it hasn't caught on, though it maybe be too early to call.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#163

Post by srgpqt »

tambourine_man wrote: post #139
ivosaur wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

A lean alternative to React would be preact.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#164

Post by steviedotboston »

tambourine_man wrote: post #83
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…

>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…

I agree with this 100%. Even though "vanilla JS" is more powerful now, JQuery is still much easier to work with.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#165

Post by tambourine_man »

shaicoleman wrote: post #138
rzwitserloot wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not that simple. It used to have a more capable renderer, they rolled it back to the Word one (no animated GIFs!) and have since upgraded again. So Outlook 2007-2016 is really crappy, versions before and after that, a bit less so.

The lovely world of enterprise software.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#166

Post by megous »

Tenal wrote: post #149
Klonoar wrote: post #122

I think jQuery is amazing, but one thing that I've found over the years is that the real killer for it was CSS animations becoming simpler to use and more widespread in terms of support. The final thing I used to reach for jQuery for was animation support, but that need is by and large gone now. AJAX/JSONP is good there, but to be honest it's not something that needs a wrapper these days. Glad to see the library is s…

CSS animations are a pain-inducing non-starter for thousands of recurring use cases. Example: Using Javascript to SHOW a modal, but then relying applying addClass('animate') using CSS animations to transition that modal (eg: bottom of screen to center, while fading in) are nearly impossible without tons of hackery. The animations do not render. Hence jQuery animation calls.

CSS animations are a necessity if you want any kind of performance on mobile browsers and older phones.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#167

Post by cultofmetatron »

tambourine_man wrote: post #139
ivosaur wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> and that's the lean alternative to React.

Ahem https://preactjs.com/

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#168

Post by bredren »

Tenal wrote: post #149
Klonoar wrote: post #122

I think jQuery is amazing, but one thing that I've found over the years is that the real killer for it was CSS animations becoming simpler to use and more widespread in terms of support. The final thing I used to reach for jQuery for was animation support, but that need is by and large gone now. AJAX/JSONP is good there, but to be honest it's not something that needs a wrapper these days. Glad to see the library is s…

CSS animations are a pain-inducing non-starter for thousands of recurring use cases. Example: Using Javascript to SHOW a modal, but then relying applying addClass('animate') using CSS animations to transition that modal (eg: bottom of screen to center, while fading in) are nearly impossible without tons of hackery. The animations do not render. Hence jQuery animation calls.

They are. But I still wouldn’t turn to jquery to solve this particular problem.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#169

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#170

Post by megous »

kureikain wrote: post #62

I no longer use jQuery nowadays due to React/Stimulus but one nice thing about jQuery is ability search for an element in a DOM note and append html. You can do it with raw JavaScript but jQuery API is light years ahead.

For a good reason. XSS is no joke. I even block innerHTML and friends in my apps via empty trusted-types and require-trusted-types-for 'script' CSP.
Post reply on HN