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

281–290 of 404 posts

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#281

Post by bdhcuidbebe »

hnfong wrote: post #206
holoduke wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still need some kind of application framework. Jquery is just a low level utility. But higher level you need to maintain architecture. Specially in spa's

You don't "need" an application framework. People have been building websites (even SPAs) before the 2010s and they didn't "need" these frameworks. Given what we know today, I'll grant you that in some cases people would want to use a framework, but it's hardly a necessity unless the context provides more specific requirements.

You dont ”need” anything. But most people prefer some organization, familiarity and reusability, and not having to reinvent the wheel in every project they start.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#282

Post by manuelmoreale »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #147
tipiirai wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second to that: jQuery is awesome. Or more specifically: the idea that websites can be built with vanilla HTML, CSS, and _optional_ JS. jQuery embraces progressive enhancement and separation of concerns pattern, which is quite the opposite of how websites are built these days. Web development starts with 10+ React import statements for components, CSS, images, and whatnot. JavaScript is a must, not optional.

> JavaScript is a must, not optional. I build plenty of CSS only sites without any JS just fine. I avoid using it as much as I can and generally only need it for forms or galleries, occasionally some ajax stuff. But it's seldom required.

Just want to say I appreciate you for doing that.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#283

Post by arkh »

mm007emko wrote: post #69

I remember jQuery from it's heyday when we used it as a replacement for Mootools. Since many people are going from React to HTMX, maybe we've made a full circle and we'll see web using just plain jQuery as well?

HTMX makes me think of Mootools: small, very specialized js library.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#284

Post by freediver »

mysteryos wrote: post #258

This throws me back to my junior days (2008~) where i had a heated discussion with my technical lead, to add jQuery to a project. His argument was that the size of minified library(40kb) would add too much overhead to the loading time of the page. He then, promptly spent a full week trying to code an ajax call and testing its support on different browsers and ultimately failed to make it work on Internet explorer 5.…

Kudos to your technical lead for fighting a good fight.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#285

Post by ape4 »

For the functions that are being removed, is there a list of the native replacements. eg $.isNumeric() == parseFloat() ?

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#286

Post by senfiaj »

evan_ wrote: post #28
arp242 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a bunch of pretty convenient selectors that are not supported by document.querySelector(), such as :selected, :checked and a bunch of others (I forgot which exactly, but I've run in to it a few times). In general the DOM API offends pretty much every single of my sensibilities on how to design good APIs. I also have some gripes with the jQuery API, but it's a lot better. jQuery just reads and writes so much m…

`:visible` and `:hidden` are really cool

In my opinion selecting something based on it's layout is oftentimes a dangerous pattern, you are basically tying the UI layout with the logic. People can overuse these cool selectors. I've personally worked on a website where the frontend part was a spaghetti mess with the half of the source code occupied by selector names. Some files have over 5000 lines of code. It would be far less pain to maintain and implement features if the website used some framework like angular.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#287

Post by 5350-uiop-1130 »

robertoandred wrote: post #239
5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes and far easier to drop jq into a project. no need for build tools and all headache. (i know you do that with react but its not comparable features).

You don’t run your JS through babel or minification?

why would I?

for a small project those efficiencies wont make a difference on my $20 godaddy hosting account.

i dont want some tool or process getting in my way. if i have a problem then i will look for a solution.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#288

Post by vdaea »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #272
tambourine_man wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither are written in PHP so they don't work on most cheap hostings.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#289

Post by senfiaj »

yread wrote: post #203
nfriedly wrote: post #31

I remember building web apps in the days before jQuery, it was a mess. The DOM APIs were full of quirks, and all the libraries that predated jQuery had their own issues. These days, we have better options for building complex web apps, including much-improved native APIs. I don't think I've started a new project using jQuery in 10 years. But for maintainin a lightweight website that just needs a little bit of interac…

Especially the events! Those were browser-specific nightmares

Today it's not nearly as bad as it was before. I personally have very few reasons to use jQuery. Maybe it's somewhat shorter code and supports some cool pseudoselectors (IMHO, they are often bad patterns) but for me it's often easier to understand and debug a code using vanilla JS. For example, sometimes I have struggled to find the exact event listener callback by using dev tools because when you use nested click events because the code passes throw a lot of jQuery code before reaching the actual event listener.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#290

Post by PrimeMcFly »

manuelmoreale wrote: post #282
PrimeMcFly wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> JavaScript is a must, not optional. I build plenty of CSS only sites without any JS just fine. I avoid using it as much as I can and generally only need it for forms or galleries, occasionally some ajax stuff. But it's seldom required.

Just want to say I appreciate you for doing that.

Thanks :)

It just seems like good practice. I want my sites to be as fast, minimal, compatible and as usable as possible, while still looking and feeling modern.

Post reply on HN