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

jQuery v4.0 Beta

blog.jquery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 404 posts

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#271

Post by [deleted] »

jve wrote: post #268
cxr wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you think that link shows (I don't know what John thought it showed, either—it's a classic "talking to one's own head, instead of who you're trying to communicate with" situation, and David Baron's confusion on the mailing list at the time is understandable). To reiterate: > The argument for querySelector / querySelectorAll calls is literally mimicked from John Resig's grounbreaking API design No, i…

So you couldn't get away with lazy and ignorant two word answer and it forced you to write quality one :) One would argue whether we'd have querySelector if jQuery wasn't as popular. We may have an inspiration chain here... but thanks for pointing out to prior art.

[deleted]

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#272

Post by PrimeMcFly »

tambourine_man wrote: post #163
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a buggy insecure mess. No one should be advocating for wordpress.

I’d like to know the name of this alternative that’s as feature-rich and yet bullet-proof while still being open source

Django and Wagtail is one option. Do a little research and you'll find others.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#274

Post by cxr »

jve wrote: post #268
cxr wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you think that link shows (I don't know what John thought it showed, either—it's a classic "talking to one's own head, instead of who you're trying to communicate with" situation, and David Baron's confusion on the mailing list at the time is understandable). To reiterate: > The argument for querySelector / querySelectorAll calls is literally mimicked from John Resig's grounbreaking API design No, i…

So you couldn't get away with lazy and ignorant two word answer and it forced you to write quality one :) One would argue whether we'd have querySelector if jQuery wasn't as popular. We may have an inspiration chain here... but thanks for pointing out to prior art.

[flagged]

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#275

Post by PrimeMcFly »

dawnerd wrote: post #215
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a buggy insecure mess. No one should be advocating for wordpress.

The only buggy or insecure code is really from third party plugins and themes. Wordpress core has been rock solid. Ya you still need to setup caching and there’s some modifications to run it at scale but that’s all a solved problem thanks to the likes of Automattic and their VIP platform.

> The only buggy or insecure code is really from third party plugins and themes. Wordpress core has been rock solid.

Rock solid? I don't really trust the codebase at all, and generally you need at least some plugins.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#276

Post by tored »

mkoryak wrote: post #170
tored wrote: post #138

Worst part of jQuery is actually upgrading it to a new version, because the api design that made jQuery powerful is also what makes it quite difficult figure out if you broke anything.

Why worry when you can easily load both versions with jQuery.noConflict() !!! Or you can just load one on top of the other. It will be ok

Loading jQuery twice is a band aid solution.

However the jQuery 4 announcement page linked to this jQuery migration plugin that I was unaware of. Perhaps it can help in some old projects.

https://github.com/jquery/jquery-migrate

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#277

Post by heartbreak »

khasan222 wrote: post #264
ecshafer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, jQuery is awesome. People have been in love with the overly complex and fancy javascript frameworks for the last 15 years or so. But jQuery doing dynamic binding to dynamically generated forms for some error states and maybe an ajax calls is literally all the javascript you need in 99% of web pages and the rest is overkill. The industry is going to move away from the complexities to React and towards more of th…

I’ve been writing JavaScript for 15 years professionally, and I must say this comment seems to be made by someone not as familiar with the context here. Moving away from React and frameworks like it would require a radical rethinking of what we expect to do with web apps. Building something like google maps, google docs, figma, are definitely doable with some of these tools, but it is almost impossible to maintain. T…

How many React apps actually have an interface approaching the complexity of Figma or even Facebook?

No one is arguing that complex web applications don’t benefit from React and friends. It’s completely overkill for most of the web.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#278

Post by geenat »

Awesome. My problem is I've been waiting for 4.0 soooo long I ended up making my own jQuery with some key differences:

  * Animations, tweens, timelines use pure CSS, instead of jQuery's custom system.
  * Use one element or lists transparently.
  * Inline  Locality of Behavior. No more inventing unique "one time" names.
  * Vanilla first. Zero dependencies. 1 file. Under 340 lines.
https://github.com/gnat/surreal

That said, it's fantastic to see 4.0 here, and I'll certainly be upgrading my many sites that use it!

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#280

Post by rfl890 »

pzmarzly wrote: post #241
wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, not simpler, nextjs is simpler then php to start working with. Also running & deploying nowadays is easier. PHP used to be easiest, but fell behind.

This very much depends on what you are building and how experienced you are. If you just want a few pages, no need for background workers or database migrations, PHP is still the king. You download one of many single-executable LAMP servers, and start writing your index.php. Deploy? Just copy files to server. Zero downtime deploy? Copy files to server and use symlink to atomically switch versions. Dependencies? Compo…

Express
Post reply on HN