2 ms·

Also he may consider simply getting off the bleeding edge and falling back a little - surf behind the curve. We're still on jquery 1.3.2 and have no plans for

by moe 17y ago

Also he may consider simply getting off the bleeding edge and falling back a little - surf behind the curve. We're still on jquery 1.3.2 and have no plans for upgrading until there's a genuine need (e.g. a plugin requiring a newer version). Installing a freshly released version of anything is just asking for trouble.

Silhouette 17y ago
FWIW, it was the potential performance improvements more than the new features that we were interested in. The project that hit the event model problems is a fairly complicated UI, which does a lot of manipulation of the DOM to build forms whose contents change dynamically. Regarding participating in alpha and beta releases, as suggested by the GP post: speaking personally, I'm happy to contribute to projects I find worthwhile (which certainly includes jQuery). I did check whether the issues we had were known in the jQuery bug tracker, for example. But my colleagues and I are contractors, often paid on a time and materials basis. I would not be comfortable billing my client for time I was spending testing and reporting bugs on pre-release versions of third party libraries, because that's not what my client pays me for. And that means that if I choose to use a certain library to support a project and then I spend time helping its pre-release testing, it has a direct financial cost to me. Keeping in mind the context of this discussion -- whether someone should change their project from one library to another -- I think it is fair to balance any potential benefits from the rapid pace of development with awareness of these potential costs. It doesn't mean moving to jQuery is a bad idea, nor that jQuery's approach is wrong, nor that jQuery is somehow a bad project. It's just another factor that should be considered before making a decision.

2 ms·

Also he may consider simply getting off the bleeding edge and falling back a little - surf behind the curve. We're still on jquery 1.3.2 and have no plans for

by moe 17y ago

Silhouette 17y ago
FWIW, it was the potential performance improvements more than the new features that we were interested in. The project that hit the event model problems is a fairly complicated UI, which does a lot of manipulation of the DOM to build forms whose contents change dynamically. Regarding participating in alpha and beta releases, as suggested by the GP post: speaking personally, I'm happy to contribute to projects I find worthwhile (which certainly includes jQuery). I did check whether the issues we had were known in the jQuery bug tracker, for example. But my colleagues and I are contractors, often paid on a time and materials basis. I would not be comfortable billing my client for time I was spending testing and reporting bugs on pre-release versions of third party libraries, because that's not what my client pays me for. And that means that if I choose to use a certain library to support a project and then I spend time helping its pre-release testing, it has a direct financial cost to me. Keeping in mind the context of this discussion -- whether someone should change their project from one library to another -- I think it is fair to balance any potential benefits from the rapid pace of development with awareness of these potential costs. It doesn't mean moving to jQuery is a bad idea, nor that jQuery's approach is wrong, nor that jQuery is somehow a bad project. It's just another factor that should be considered before making a decision.