jQuery v4.0 Beta • Hacker News Board

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#81

Post by esaym » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 3:45 AM UTC

ecshafer wrote: post #23

technojunkie wrote: post #18

For those of you who are curious what drives jQuery in 2024 and beyond, you need to remember that WordPress is still more than 1/3 of the web, and the majority of installations and so many plugins critically rely on jQuery. Yes, seriously. Any advances to removing deprecated APIs or functions are great. jQuery will probably be around dominantly on the web for years to come.

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…

>But jQuery doing dynamic binding to dynamically generated forms

Do you have an example of that?

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#82

Post by dylan604 » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 3:45 AM UTC

duskwuff wrote: post #59

dylan604 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I'm old and new tricks are less interesting, I find $.ajax() much more simple than promise, await, async of native JS. I have used straight native JS on a couple of smaller personal projects just to get some familiarity with it. However, it's just muscle memory type of getting stuff done with $.ajax() for me. Also, maybe 20 people use any of the code I write for manipulating DOM. I'm not a UI person. I'm a ba…

> I find $.ajax() much more simple than promise, await, async of native JS. $.ajax() returns a promise. If you're calling .done() / .error() on it to handle the results -- well, that's exactly how you work with promises.

you think it's the same, but it's not even close to me

  .ajax({
    success:function(result),
    error:function(xhr),
  }

vs

fetch().then((e)=>function()) is even close to being the same, then we're just not even talking the same language

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#83

Post by cxr » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 3:45 AM UTC

ecshafer wrote: post #23

technojunkie wrote: post #18

For those of you who are curious what drives jQuery in 2024 and beyond, you need to remember that WordPress is still more than 1/3 of the web, and the majority of installations and so many plugins critically rely on jQuery. Yes, seriously. Any advances to removing deprecated APIs or functions are great. jQuery will probably be around dominantly on the web for years to come.

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…

[flagged]

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#84

Post by kccqzy » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 3:45 AM UTC

rjbwork wrote: post #47

bufferoverflow wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jQuery is not awesome. It was awesome 15 years ago. Now it's completely outdated. It's very hard to reason about DOM that can be manually changed by any random piece of code. That's why declarative solutions like React/Vue/Svelte are so much better.

>It's very hard to reason about DOM I don't mean to be overly snarky here, but as someone who's just totally out of their depth in modern web UI - is that why people like these frameworks? Because they're very easy to reason about? I've generally found them to be mountains and mountains of boilerplate and spaghetti, but I really do not have a wide base of experience to pull from on this topic.

Yes React is easy to reason about. In fact old versions of React were even easier to reason about than modern versions using hooks (`useState`). I used to use React and just React: no random npm packages, no Babel or any transpilation, no JSX, and it was pure joy compared to jQuery in a complex multi-step form. The jQuery code was in fact spaghetti.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#85

Post by jmondi » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 3:46 AM UTC

rjbwork wrote: post #47

bufferoverflow wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jQuery is not awesome. It was awesome 15 years ago. Now it's completely outdated. It's very hard to reason about DOM that can be manually changed by any random piece of code. That's why declarative solutions like React/Vue/Svelte are so much better.

>It's very hard to reason about DOM I don't mean to be overly snarky here, but as someone who's just totally out of their depth in modern web UI - is that why people like these frameworks? Because they're very easy to reason about? I've generally found them to be mountains and mountains of boilerplate and spaghetti, but I really do not have a wide base of experience to pull from on this topic.

For your blog, jquery is totally fine and reasonable. Jquery for a web application? That is going to be way more of a headache. It all depends on what you’re trying to accomplish.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#86

Post by DrSiemer » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 3:46 AM UTC

wkirby wrote: post #41

I'm consistently surprised by the commenters on HN who seem to think jQuery is just a DOM selection library, when in fact it is a widely supported, incredibly stable tool set for (yes) DOM selection, but also attribute manipulation, Ajax requests, event handling, animation, and general utility functions. What's more, where there _is_ native functionality that replaces jQuery, the API is never as fluent. For work that…

A few years ago I dropped jQuery for plain vanilla js and I've never looked back. Native js has everything jQuery has, except for the pile of often poorly maintained half baked "plugins", that usually only do what they want to do and not much else.

Yes, the vanilla selectors are more verbose, but any half decent code editor will make them just as fast to type. I don't mean to be penantic, but I don't really understand why so many people still use jQuery at all.

https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#87

Post by mkl » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 3:47 AM UTC

arp242 wrote: post #57

mkl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:checked is standard CSS, and old.

Eh, do'h, of course. There's a few selectors anyway, but I'd have to check which ones exactly. :eq(n) and :visible from a quick check (:nth-child(n) can replace :eq(n) in some cases, but not all).

Yes, I've used :nth-of-type(n) for that too. Visibility is surprisingly messy though.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#88

Post by umvi » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 3:47 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #52

lakpan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s only simpler because you know how to use it. For most use cases fetch and async/await is just easier.

I mean, duh? Of course doing something that I've done for a long time is going to be more simple to me than me fumbling/stumbling through something I haven't done much. What new insight are you providing me here?

Async await fetch lets you flatten your nested callback functions into simple procedural programming. It makes everything much easier to reason about, no more closures and such.

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#89

Post by Finbarr » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 3:48 AM UTC

p-e-w wrote: post #67

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.

One website that almost always gets mentioned when people talk about jQuery today is "You might not need jQuery" ( https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/ ). That site is the best ad for jQuery I've ever seen. For almost every task it describes, the jQuery code is shorter, cleaner, and more intuitive than the vanilla "modern" JS one. And that's after almost 20 years, and I don't know how many billions of dollars invested…

This is incredible and such a great ad for jQuery. It's almost as if the creator(s) built that site ironically. So many examples are way clearer and easier in jQuery, like this one:

  JQUERY:
  $(el).toggle();

  IE8+:
  function toggle(el) {
    if (el.style.display == 'none') {
      el.style.display = '';
    } else {
      el.style.display = 'none';
    }
  }

Gotta love that "modern" triple attribute repetition.

From: https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/#toggle

Re: jQuery v4.0 Beta

#90

Post by treflop » Wed, Feb 07, 2024, 3:48 AM UTC

Capricorn2481 wrote: post #64

rjbwork wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's very hard to reason about DOM I don't mean to be overly snarky here, but as someone who's just totally out of their depth in modern web UI - is that why people like these frameworks? Because they're very easy to reason about? I've generally found them to be mountains and mountains of boilerplate and spaghetti, but I really do not have a wide base of experience to pull from on this topic.

I started with Jquery, I learned React. I prefer React. React complexity is often conflated with things like Next JS or other SPA solutions. React was originally meant to be a library for building small components that you drop into an otherwise static websites. But people usually don't talk about React unless they're talking about whole sites being in React. For that reason, I think its complexity is exaggerated. Mo…

I’m a big fan of React and jQuery but it sounds like you’re not using jQuery right.

All my jQuery components were self contained and you just initialized them with $(‘[data-date-picker]’).datePicker(). It is pretty obvious to anyone looking at the code that if you remove “data-date-picker”, it stopped being a date picker.