2 ms·
I'm not arguing against jQuery in the abstract, but you can write concise readable vanilla js/css with animations. I've used jQuery recently because I had to t
by nkozyra 7y ago
I'm not arguing against jQuery in the abstract, but you can write concise readable vanilla js/css with animations.
I've used jQuery recently because I had to target older browsers, but if you don't it's almost always cleaner and lighter weight to use modern J's.
- rajangdavis 7y agoHonestly, my first thought was to port the code to ES6/CSS3 because I also share the belief that the code can be as concise if not moreso; however, I still think what the author did was a good solution. I think the tradeoff is if you want to delegate everything (animations and DOM manipulation) to one language using a single library or split things up into two languages with no libraries. I prefer splitting things between JS and CSS, but I'm impressed with how clever, concise, and expressive using jQuery can be.