5 ms·
It looks like it lets you use jQuery-style selectors to get at elements on a page.
by coderdude 16y ago
It looks like it lets you use jQuery-style selectors to get at elements on a page.
- nailer 16y agoWhy use it vs jquery?
- coderdude 16y agoIf all you wanted was to use jQuery-style selectors then this file is only ~3kb compared to jQuery which is like ~180kb (uncompressed).
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Devilboy 16y agoDoes this support a decent selection of browsers?
- coderdude 16y agoLol people, I don't know. I didn't make this and I've never seen it before today. I'm doing the same research here that you guys could be doing.
- rmccue 16y agoCouldn't you just use Sizzle directly?
- Yaggo 16y agoIf you link to jQuery on Google's CDN, changes are pretty high that it's already cached by the browser.
- coderdude 16y agoYes. The minified version is much smaller and after gzipping it's around 20kb or so. When using a CDN there is a chance that it's cached. I'm just stating the obvious here. Either way, the 7000 lines of JS that comprise jQuery are a lot and this seems like an alternative if you just need that single piece of functionality. Linking to Google's CDN is not without its own pitfalls though. I believe there have been discussions on HN in the past about this.
- latortuga 16y agoNot over SSL.
- tomstuart 16y agoSee http://hoisie.com/post/yes_browsers_do_cache_ssl_resources__so_please_use_googles_cdn http://hoisie.com/post/yes_browsers_do_cache_ssl_resources__...: This is a completely incorrect statement. All browsers cache SSL content, as long as you specify the correct Cache-Control headers. A simple curl request reveals that jquery served from Google's CDN has Cache-Control public.
- latortuga 16y agoThank you for this!