4 ms·

Has anyone used jquery mobile? It was an amazing project that let you write normal css/html/js without modifications THEN rendered the html+js into a SPA. It w

Has anyone used jquery mobile? It was an amazing project that let you write normal css/html/js without modifications THEN rendered the html+js into a SPA. It was fast, preloaded pages, clean, easy to write and really well documented - and maintained the root dom element. BUT! The project is mainly(opinion) dead. Instead people want to write in a new language (react,vue,etc) then deal with adding a massive layer of complexity.

FreakyT 8y ago
I dunno, my experience was that JQuery mobile was slow, bloated, and glitchy. Perhaps it was simply ahead of its time, and 2011-era browsers couldn't keep up with it, but either way I much prefer using its successors.
- zdragnar 8y ago
  This is the first time I've ever heard of jquery mobile described as fast, and I used to work for a medium sized consultancy / agency (as in upwards of 50 front-end devs) that did a lot of projects with it. In fact, I don't really recall anyone speaking positively at all; at best it was a necessary evil.
schizoidboy 8y ago
I've used JQM for a SPA for years and it's old but works fine. I'm dreading the day they release the new version and finally remove deprecations (for good reason: to improve performance) because many add-ons and hacks will surely break. > The project is mainly(opinion) dead. I don't think it's dead so much as they are really worried about backwards compatibility (rightly so), so they're taking their time. It could also be argued that, for its purposes, it's not so much dead as nearly complete. On top of JQM, there's PhoneGap which I've also used for years and created both an Android and iOS app in the app stores. It allows you to access most native APIs through JavaScript shims. Overall, I've enjoyed the simplicity of JQM+PhoneGap (I use Rails as the backend). You can still layer on any other JS framework on top, so it's not limiting. My friends and I use the app daily and performance is fine on a modern phone. Having the same code (and I'd argue, look and feel as well) for web, mobile, and native is the best way to go for a small project trying to contain time and costs.

FreakyT 8y ago

I dunno, my experience was that JQuery mobile was slow, bloated, and glitchy. Perhaps it was simply ahead of its time, and 2011-era browsers couldn't keep up with it, but either way I much prefer using its successors.

zdragnar 8y ago
This is the first time I've ever heard of jquery mobile described as fast, and I used to work for a medium sized consultancy / agency (as in upwards of 50 front-end devs) that did a lot of projects with it. In fact, I don't really recall anyone speaking positively at all; at best it was a necessary evil.

schizoidboy 8y ago

I've used JQM for a SPA for years and it's old but works fine. I'm dreading the day they release the new version and finally remove deprecations (for good reason: to improve performance) because many add-ons and hacks will surely break. > The project is mainly(opinion) dead. I don't think it's dead so much as they are really worried about backwards compatibility (rightly so), so they're taking their time. It could also be argued that, for its purposes, it's not so much dead as nearly complete. On top of JQM, there's PhoneGap which I've also used for years and created both an Android and iOS app in the app stores. It allows you to access most native APIs through JavaScript shims. Overall, I've enjoyed the simplicity of JQM+PhoneGap (I use Rails as the backend). You can still layer on any other JS framework on top, so it's not limiting. My friends and I use the app daily and performance is fine on a modern phone. Having the same code (and I'd argue, look and feel as well) for web, mobile, and native is the best way to go for a small project trying to contain time and costs.