4 ms·

I am so sick and tired of this argument. Having done it several times, no, you do not end up with something as big as jQuery, not by a long shot.

• Udik 9y ago
  As big as jQuery? Gzipped it's 27k, a ridiculously small size.
  • zmodem 9y ago
    Ridiculously small? That could take 10 s to download on a 2G network.
    • sametmax 9y ago
      Yeah, sure, most sites today are totally browsable in 2G. Event the damn native APP for hackernews, using only JSON, is not usable in 2G.
      • ahakki 9y ago
        For me HN seems to be one of the few websites that is usable on 2G.
  • moron4hire 9y ago
    Network bandwidth usage is also not the only metric of size we care about. After it's ungzipped, it needs to be parsed by the JS engine, and more code = slower execution.
• sametmax 9y ago
  Sure, if all you do is some onclick() and a few appendChild(). Plus for the time you spend chasing compat issues, writting wrappers, choosing small libs and packing it all together, you could have done your site. For less than 40ko. People are not blinking at including react ecosysteme, which is huge. But attack jQuery ? Seriously ?
  • moron4hire 9y ago
    > chasing compat issues, writting wrappers, choosing small libs and packing it all together, you could have done your site. I don't know about you, but usually my projects last longer than a week, so those sorts of savings don't represent a significant chunk of my overall development time. Also, I'm not a shit programmer, so I can actually write a for loop that does what I want on the first try. I've spent more time trying to figure out jQuery's goofy syntax and what the hell it's doing with AJAX queries than it has ever saved me in development.