3 ms·
To be fair, that's because the jQuery solution was usually orders of magnitude simpler. Although newer versions of javascript have absorbed enough of the jQuery
by bigmanwalter 9y ago
To be fair, that's because the jQuery solution was usually orders of magnitude simpler. Although newer versions of javascript have absorbed enough of the jQuery api that this is no longer the case.
- rplnt 9y agoAcceptable way would be "Hey, it's done like this, but since the language sucks there's this random library where you can do it this way". Including jQuery for one small task would be stupid. Including jQuery in a non-web project would be weird. Including jQuery in some es variants would be impossible.
- bigmanwalter 9y agoAt that time, javascript was used exclusively for client-side web development. It was pretty much impossible to write ajax requests in any sane fashion that worked cross-browser. It's not such a stretch to assume the user asking the question could use jQuery.
- rplnt 9y agoThe first part is not true. And while I agree with the second, I'm talking about general language questions not related to web in any way (no DOM manipulation, no http requests, etc..).