3 ms·
This is written by someone who has never used jquery or forgot it. The beauty of jquery was not being able to use CSS selectors to find elements, but in being
by mkoryak 7y ago
This is written by someone who has never used jquery or forgot it.
The beauty of jquery was not being able to use CSS selectors to find elements, but in being able to work with multiple selected elements as if it was a single one.
Ok, you will say, but you can always do
[... document.querySelectorAll('.foo .bar')].map(it => it.style.backgroundColor = 'corn');
instead of $('.foo .bar').css('backgroundColor', 'corn');
and it is clearly better because it does not use jQuery.
Don't get me wrong, jQuery has many issues that make it a very poor choice for big modern web applications, but please don't tell me that it can be replaced by querySelectorAll.
- rkuykendall-com 7y agoNa, the beauty of jQ was writing JS once and being confident most of it would work in most browsers. Everything else was sugar.
- lwb 7y ago> please don't tell me that [jQuery] can be replaced by querySelectorAll. I didn't, and it can't -- my comment was merely to suggest that jQuery is now a shell of its old self, thanks largely to the improvement of browser DOM APIs.
- danlugo92 7y agofor (const node of document.querySelectorAll('.foo .bar')) { node.backgroundColor = 'corn' }
- ZeikJT 7y agoNot sure why someone would use map like that (which would unnecessarily generate and return a new array of 'corn's) instead of just forEach. I'd also probably recommend using Array.from instead of a spread (for clarity) but less concerned about that part.