3 ms·
I think it's a pretty amusing observation about the JS dev community to see some of the responses to this here. Some people are here for Irony Club, some people
by beager 9y ago
I think it's a pretty amusing observation about the JS dev community to see some of the responses to this here. Some people are here for Irony Club, some people have no clue there's an Irony Club meeting, and some people are opening up their jQuery wounds and bleeding all over the room.
One thing I'll say about jQuery vs doing POJS (Plain-ol' JavaScript, pronounced Poise, heh) is that jQuery comes from a world where browsers sucked and build processes for JS were virtually non-existent. The market share of sucky browsers is much smaller now, and we have sophisticated build systems for JS. All of the benefits of jQuery (normalization, removing boilerplate, etc) can be had with vanilla plugins that you can put in your project and forget about.
The lingering damage of jQuery is that we have a bunch of jQuery devs in the world now who simply cannot write JavaScript. We've got to move past that.
- allover 9y ago> We've got to move past that. No, we've got to move past lazy generalizations. You've boiled down multiple issues to 'people only know jQuery'. Meanwhile the rest of this thread is dealing with more interesting and accurate specifics.
- beager 9y agoI have not boiled down multiple issues to that, I'm indicating that the problem with jQuery in long-term adoption is that patterns meant to help devs avoid the untenable realm of JS yesterday keep them sheltered from good JS practice today. For that reason, we should move past jquery.
- goatlover 9y ago"We" should do whatever makes sense for the project at hand, be that vanilla, jquery, react, etc. There's a ton of different websites out there. jQuery might be a requirement of the codebase, or already loaded, or heavily used, etc. Or the developer might find it fastest to just drop jquery in for a simple site.