> element.nextSibling is very clear. It's the next sibling of the element. It's idiomatic javascript, and it follows a good naming convention, which is a skill

> element.nextSibling is very clear. It's the next sibling of the element. It's idiomatic javascript, and it follows a good naming convention, which is a skill that is language agnostic. The only catch here is that it will give you the wrong answer, and that you should (almost) never use it since it includes whitespace nodes, which you practically never want. This is why nextElementSibling exists (get the next sibling that is an element). As for the naming: this is an old old discussion we will never agree on, but I think that in the context of a DOM traversal library "next" is pretty clear. > The author is also conflating their time learning as a pro for jQuery. Had they learned vanilla javascript first, their point about not knowing which nextSibling to use would be moot. Your assumptions about my knowledge couldn't be more wrong. I spent years writing plain JavaScript. I even wrote a jQuery alternative back in the day as I didn't like various aspects of it (I think I was the only user), before giving in and "just using jQuery". I still don't like those same aspects, but it's not bad enough to use something else. I have also, recently, tried very hard to use plain JS, and this post is the result. > if you are a new developer do yourself a favor and learn the foundation it's built on first. This is just a variant of the old "kids these days, they just learn Python instead of REAL development with C, they don't even know the difference between the stack and heap!!" Okay, shrug. In the meanwhile, those "kids" are solving real problems, so well... Programming isn't some kind of intellectual exercise, it's a tool to solve problems.