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

181–190 of 292 posts

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#181

Post by Havelock »

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…

Browser compatibility issues can be resolved with Babel and as such fulfills the need of jQuery and allows me to just write javascript.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#182

Post by lhorie »

pknopf wrote: post #178
tambourine_man wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Too early to call. Wait until Typescript is properly supported.

That happened like half a year ago[0]

[0] https://svelte.dev/blog/svelte-and-typescript

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#183

Post by 1shooner »

starik36 wrote: post #156
1shooner wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>most likely already cached from CDN. I don't believe any major browser allows sites to share 3rd party caches anymore. Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24894135

True, there is still a perf win however since CDNs are located geographically closer to a global consumer than keeping the libs on your own box.

But don't modern frontend-oriented sites/apps deploy to CDNs anyway?

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#184

Post by AdrianB1 »

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…

Ajax, foreach, Datatables, small but perfect reasons to use it.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#185

Post by fendy3002 »

bigfudge wrote: post #173
mschuetz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What I don't understand is why the modern js api didn't just adopt query's conventions... they're so much nicer and more expressive most of the time.

They cannot. If they do and remove the old getelementbyname, etc, then it will be breaking change.

If they just add $ notation, then there will be redundancy / inconsistency with existing api. Furthermore it will break / confuse apps which use jquery.

Then it's far easier to just include minified jquery into your apps when you want to use it, and you have more control about it's version, etc.

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#186

Post by selfmodruntime »

tambourine_man wrote: post #131
actuator wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

At Work, we‘re building web applications that need to be accessed by hundreds of editors with thousands of pages. Most of them share an essential bundle of components. Are you telling me a project that complicated can be built using just jquery?

Also, what‘s bad about typescript?

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#187

Post by unilynx »

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.

My theory is still that it was about using Word as a component to write replies. However, if they delayed the HTML->Word conversion to that point, everyone would complain to MS "Reply is broken!"

By using Word as a viewer the email is broken right on delivery and users now complain "The email you sent me is broken!"

At least it's still better than Notes

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#188

Post by rubyist5eva »

pqdbr wrote: post #133
spiderfarmer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Jokes on you, html over the wire is HOT NEW SH*T.

https://hotwire.dev/

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#189

Post by selfmodruntime »

didip wrote: post #179

I super love jQuery. The proliferation of SPA is super unfortunate, maybe one day the pendulum will swing back to server side HTML with lighter JS for progressive enhancements.

React is trying that with server rendered components

Re: jQuery 3.6.0

#190

Post by girvo »

tambourine_man wrote: post #131
actuator wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

https://htmx.org

For when I’ve wanted to sprinkle interactivity, this is what I’ve turned to lately. It’s quite brilliant, and more declarative than most solutions.

But React is still necessary in my day to day job, as our web application is incredibly complicated in terms of feature set and customisation. They both have a place.

Post reply on HN