20 ms·
jQuery 3.6.0
- elwell 6y agoThose API docs are so nostalgic.
- singhrac 6y agoI love the fact that they haven't changed styles in a decade. It really does bring me back to high school.
- newsbinator 6y ago> We still have our eyes on a jQuery 4.0 release, but until then we will continue to support the 3.x branch and address important issues.
- pier25 6y agoThis caught my eye too. What could they be cooking?
- TimTheTinker 6y agoMy guess is a slimmed-down API with most or all support for older browsers removed, perhaps something similar to Zepto. There is still something to be said for the usability of jQuery's API for direct DOM manipulation, as opposed to the more verbose API offered by the DOM itself.
- pier25 6y agoI love modern reactive frameworks, but for DOM manipulation the jQuery-style API is great. Some problems are much easier to solve working directly with the DOM (eg: drag and drop). The problem is that you either have control over the DOM, or let someone else do it (React, Vue, etc).
- TimTheTinker 6y ago> The problem is that you either have control over the DOM, or let someone else do it (React, Vue, etc). Someone needs to implement a (higher or lower) level of DOM access than what's offered by the current API -- something that would allow React's virtual DOM to be the actual DOM, whether that means allowing direct API access to the underlying tree data structure, or simply implementing the internal React VDOM API on top of the current DOM API.
- henryfjordan 6y agoThere seems to be milestones for 4.0 setup on Github: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/milestone/7 https://github.com/jquery/jquery/milestone/7
- distrill 6y agoI know jquery is still in use a lot all over the web, but are people still starting new projects with it?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- garymoon 6y agoI think it is still widely adopted in CMSs like Drupal and Wordpress and they have a big market share. Jquery will not die soon even if it is not the first choice for starting a new project. It's been years since the last time I used it.
- noisem4ker 6y agoYes. It's fine for progressive enhancement of server-side-rendered webpages.
- greenie_beans 6y agoI've had to learn it at a new job after starting my career making UIs with React. It's not so bad.
- ativzzz 6y agoAbsolutely. Starting most new projects with something like React/Vue is complete overkill and jquery makes adding small incremental JS functionality to your app a breeze.
- solraph 6y agoI can't speak for React, but I found adding VueJS was perfect for adding JS functionality incrementally to a section of a site. See my other comment on this thread on using it to create a dynamic contact form to an otherwise static site.
- cphoover 6y agoDo people still use jQuery? I thought the biggest advantage of this library back in the day was css selector access of DOM nodes (back when we only had getElementById, getElementsByClassName, and getElementsByTagName). This has been rolled into the Javascript document api via document.querySelector, and document.querySelectorAll. Also there are browser compatibility issues that jQuery solved but a lot of these are solved with smaller footprint libraries like lodash. Also for me, along with I'm sure many others, keeping state within the DOM has fallen out of favor of more comprehensible state management inside of JS (like React Hooks, Redux...etc.) What is the current use-case for jQuery? I'm curious from hearing it's current users answer this.
- k__ 6y agoLegacy systems, probably. I read, Ember.js would depend on it.
- m00dy 6y agoI use it for my landing page in countingcarbons.co
- duxup 6y agoEvery day I do. Granted I don't so much as use it as I fix it / change it. Anything new is just vanilla as far as the legacy systems go. But those legacy systems pay the bills...
- muglug 6y agoI think a lot! For example, the new https://www.whitehouse.gov https://www.whitehouse.gov uses jQuery. When you just want to add a small bit of interaction to a mostly-static site, jQuery can help. There's a current trend to complicate things with a JAM stack that really don't need to be complicated. I've seen people propose something like [NodeJS/Ruby/PHP backend] -> GraphQL API -> React Frontend -> static html Where really they could have just gone with [NodeJS/Ruby/PHP backend] -> static html
- kyriakos 6y ago
- yawaworht1978 6y agoJQuery and reading Resig's book and viewing the source code are responsible for lifting me from horrible dev to below average dev:-) I learned to extend the library and understood to create some minimal libraries for myself. It can be very useful to this day and is almost a ballerina when comparing the bloat of other frameworks or library stacks. You never know maybe the come up with something better than react.
- shortlived 6y ago> reading Resig's book I hope you mean the JS ninja one because I just bought it week. Do you remember a particularly impactful section?
- regus 6y agoI consider secrets of the javascript ninja to be one of if not the best books on javascript. The section on functions and closures are a must read.
- yawaworht1978 6y agoThe one I have meant was "jQuery in action", at the time that left a bigger impact as far learning is concerned. The jQuery team had promises and other things long before they became part of the standard API, he explains how they made it work. However, secrets of a js ninja is very good as well, touches newer things like generators and es6, es7 features.
- _the_inflator 6y agojQuery taught me how to write JavaScript frameworks. John Resig, the founder of jQuery, wrote a book called "Secrets of the JavaScript Ninja" was back then really a mindbender. Function.prototype.toString() is really the craziest thing I know to date regarding JS. Heavily used in earlier versions of jQuery according to the book.
- sethx 6y agoPlease elaborate about toString() ?
- byroot 6y agoIf called on a Function it returns the source of the function, which allows for all sorts of meta programming.
- hajile 6y agoIf memory serves, a real world example was Angular doing a toString then injecting dependencies before calling eval on the new code. To be honest, I don’t know that there’s ever a good reason to use it in production as it almost always involves performance and security problems.
- davidmurdoch 6y ago> involves performance [...] problems Except when it solves them! https://mrale.ph/blog/2018/02/03/maybe-you-dont-need-rust-to-speed-up-your-js.html#optimizing-sorting---monomorphisation https://mrale.ph/blog/2018/02/03/maybe-you-dont-need-rust-to...
- postalrat 6y agoI once used it for a proof of concept for computer worm type message on a sort of message board. Used to re-generate the source code to be added to new messages.
- junon 6y ago
- unbendable 6y agoCrazy to think what legacy jQuery and others left. Now I am using React and the usual lib stack. But I remember using jQuery, pug (or jade), browserify, bower... that was what 5 to 6 years ago?
- sethx 6y agoIt’s still not dead??
- drummer 6y agoJquery is awesome. I still use it in all my web projects.
- niftylettuce 6y agoI'm a happy jQuery/Bootstrap user @ https://forwardemail.net https://forwardemail.net. The site scores ~100% on Lighthouse and PageSpeed Insights and is ranked #1. Open-startup @ https://forwardemail.net/open-startup https://forwardemail.net/open-startup! Completely open-source too @ https://github.com/forwardemail https://github.com/forwardemail
- spiderfarmer 6y agoYes but if you’re not using the latest JS framework how do you get girls.
- pqdbr 6y agoThis. I was a happy Rails dev but html over the wire wasn’t cutting it at the club anymore. So I had to switch to React and now I’m married. Just kidding. My wife loves Rails.
- rubyist5eva 6y agoJokes on you, html over the wire is HOT NEW SH*T. https://hotwire.dev/ https://hotwire.dev/
- nirav72 6y agoserver-side blazor does similar.
- rubyist5eva 6y agonever checked out web dev with dotnet, but maybe I will check out blazor I keep hearing cool things
- megous 6y agoYou get a girl by going places where girls congregate at a similar or higher percentage to guys. Took me a while to figure that out... Anyway, I understand sarcasm, too.
- jariel 6y agoFor those wondering, JQuery is still used on the majority of web sites in the world apparently [1] I'm not sure how the data is run, but it's quite massive share however you cut it. JQuery is still in it's foundational phase, it's still a 'core' thing, it's not remotely legacy yet. [1] https://almanac.httparchive.org/en/2019/javascript https://almanac.httparchive.org/en/2019/javascript
- alexk307 6y agoI still believe that jQuery is the best tool for the job if you're creating a small web application and don't want to learn an entire new framework.
- padseeker 6y agoYES this 1000X - I love React and choose to use it regularly and willingly. I am forced to use Angular quite a bit for my day job. While both of these libraries have their place not everything needs to be a single page app. Using server side rendered pages and sprinkling a little JS to add some DOM scripting and dynamic UX should not require adding React or Angular. It many cases using jQuery is good enough.
- kureikain 6y agoI no longer use jQuery nowadays due to React/Stimulus but one nice thing about jQuery is ability search for an element in a DOM note and append html. You can do it with raw JavaScript but jQuery API is light years ahead.
- megous 6y agoFor a good reason. XSS is no joke. I even block innerHTML and friends in my apps via empty trusted-types and require-trusted-types-for 'script' CSP.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- superfamicom 6y agojQuery is also an amazing educational tool for teaching people to program in steps, learning the native DOM methods and then being introduced to jQuery has been really fun to see light bulbs going off for new students.
- neilpanchal 6y agojQuery has the kindest, most warm hearted, whimsical release notes. During the pandemic last year: > We hope you’re staying healthy and safe while so many of us are stuck at home. With a virus ravaging the planet, we realize that jQuery may not be a high priority for you or the sites you manage. When you do have a moment, we recommend that you review this new version and upgrade. Some fun: > I’ve never gotten to say this on a jQuery release, but May the 4th be with you! A short time ago in a galaxy exactly like this one, we released jQuery 3.5.0. Release notes are also very well thought out and their philosophy is to "move slowly and not break things". I admire that. They go to great extent to provide help about how to deal with breaking changes. Ends with a section thanking the contributors. Super nice people.
- Tade0 6y ago> their philosophy is to "move slowly and not break things" The world needs more of this. I'm tired of seeing tooltips that don't disappear and thus get in the way and long GC pauses on Firefox, because nobody bothered to test their bloated React app in Firefox.
- iamcreasy 6y agoSpeaking of nice developers, Reaper DAW developers are giving away temp license and in return only asks the user to wear mask. Warmed my heart to see it.
- Klonoar 6y agoI think jQuery is amazing, but one thing that I've found over the years is that the real killer for it was CSS animations becoming simpler to use and more widespread in terms of support. The final thing I used to reach for jQuery for was animation support, but that need is by and large gone now. AJAX/JSONP is good there, but to be honest it's not something that needs a wrapper these days. Glad to see the library is still updated, though - for sites that might not have a budget to upgrade, knowing it's still got support must be nice.
- Tenal 6y agoCSS animations are a pain-inducing non-starter for thousands of recurring use cases. Example: Using Javascript to SHOW a modal, but then relying applying addClass('animate') using CSS animations to transition that modal (eg: bottom of screen to center, while fading in) are nearly impossible without tons of hackery. The animations do not render. Hence jQuery animation calls.
- megous 6y agoCSS animations are a necessity if you want any kind of performance on mobile browsers and older phones.
- bredren 6y agoThey are. But I still wouldn’t turn to jquery to solve this particular problem.
- afavour 6y agoWhat you’ve described is actually pretty simple to do with CSS Animations. Just not with CSS Transitions, which is what people usually use.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hising 6y agojQuery solved (and solves) a lot of browser inconsistencies (fewer now than before) and I guess a lot of older codebases still rely on it, so I am glad to see it is still moving forward. However, jQuery has a built in problem in modern web development, as the DOM-functions that now makes it obsolete, as in it does not solve the more complex problem of state management and scoping of components. For some sprinkling on top of server side rendered web pages I guess it still has some value if you need to cater for older web browsers, but for those who build applications that handles state and components for the current setup of browsers it is not needed in your toolbox any more when bootstrapping new projects. However, it helped us getting to a point where we could rely on solid libraries and focus on building better user experiences. I am glad it still gets updated but will probably not write "jQuery-code" anymore in my professional life.
- synergy20 6y agoFrontend has been a pain in the ass for me for quite a while as someone trying to learn frontend development. jQuery's concise syntax beats everyone, I hope Javascript can adapt it someday, truly a KISS design gem. However I do need write code to do data-binding myself, which is important for interactivity. Vuejs can be used to replace jQuery however it does not have the simple syntax, you do get data-binding for free without using its full-blown SPA framework. However you do need master a lot more concepts comparing to jQuery. React/Angular are both overkill for 90% use cases, unless you're doing a serious SPA that is. For me it's between jQuery and Vuejs these days, I learn both, one reason I worry about jQuery is that it's losing some steam and the development is not very active. Still I'm excited about this new release.
- shortlived 6y ago> one reason I worry about jQuery is that it's losing some steam and the development is not very active It’s super mature which I like. Compare to Vue 3 which is now GA yet lots of related components like Vuetify are quarters behind in supporting v3. Lots of exciting features for sure but also lots of churn.
- synergy20 6y agoon jQuery 4.0 roadmap page: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/milestone/7 https://github.com/jquery/jquery/milestone/7 , it seems having no progress in two full years.
- didip 6y agoI super love jQuery. The proliferation of SPA is super unfortunate, maybe one day the pendulum will swing back to server side HTML with lighter JS for progressive enhancements.
- j-krieger 6y agoReact is trying that with server rendered components
- maxpert 6y agoI sometimes look at react, and these modern frameworks and wish they had a same nice API as jQuery. I still profoundly remember how much simple it was compared to Prototype.js, and how simple it was to do a zebra stripes on table. I am still looking for that next piece of revolutionary simple library that will bring the joy of jQuery with modern concepts and simplicity.
- claytongulick 6y agoI think a lot of the comments in this thread that are critical of SPAs are thinking about them wrong. SPAs aren't (shouldn't be) a replacement for websites. They are a fantastic option for replacing native apps (PWAs). Moving from walled garden native apps to the open web is good for everyone except the app stores.
- tored 6y agoProbably because many websites today are written as SPAs. Many of these modern frameworks are also pushed as to be used for websites.
- pratzc07 6y agoAre CSS Frameworks like Bootstrap still using jquery? Otherwise I don't see the use case of it now that we have so many JS frameworks plus Javascript as a language has changed so much.
- mgerullis 6y agoBootstrap 5 dropped jquery but apparently it’s still possible to include it for tooltips and modals.
- ulisesrmzroche 6y agoIt’s definitely on the way to becoming legacy tech, but jQuery was a great library back in the day, like, history book great. It played a big part in the Web 2.0 days, could be argued that if it wasn’t for jQuery we wouldn’t have the modern web at all, or if so, it would be a lot worse.
- temporallobe 6y agoA lot of people throw shade on jQuery, but it’s extremely powerful and versatile. I’ve built entire apps with just jQuery, Foundation, and POJO classes (and other smaller libraries as needed sprinkled in). This stack is certainly not appropriate for all apps, but for small projects it’s far easier to manage than the overkill that is React or Angular. Sure, you don’t get generators and built-in spec testing or other Enterprise-friendly goodies, but for simple apps that use a REST API, jQuery sure as hell provides a nice set of tools. And while modern browsers support the query selector methods that sort mimic jQuery, this starts to get awfully tedious if you want to do complex DOM manipulation and you’ll find yourself writing functions that start to look a lot like jQuery. Why reinvent the wheel in order to save a few kb of space and pride yourself on having a “100% jQuery-free app!” when modern apps already load much larger libraries or minify and package the entire app’s code?
- finnegan_third 6y agoIs jQuery worth learning in 2021? I started studying web development 2 years ago and I never feel the need to reach for jQuery. From the very beginning I wanted to get a solid knowledge of front end technologies without libraries or frameworks. After working for some time in this field I do feel the need for stuff like Bootstrap, Tailwind, Vue/React, but not jQuery. What's is selling point considering that DOM manipulation and HTTP requests has improved over the years in vanilla JS? I've read through most of the comments and I see a lot of: I'm used to jQuery syntax $ is shorter than document.querySelector jQuery provides better support for older browsers First two aren't really meaningful to me, and for the last one, I'd say if you care about browser support you are probably compiling your code anyway. I'm not familiar with using jQuery but I work with people that use it and I've realized it promotes some bad practices like: Repeated DOM node selection due to the ease of use of $(selector) Manipulation of CSS that should be done in CSS jQuery is not JavaScript. Some people use it as a crutch and it shows So my main question, if someone is comfortable with vanilla JS, does it make any sense learning jQuery?
- AckmanDESU 6y agoIf you’ve been doing web dev for 2 years you can pick up jQuery in an evening. Go do it. You might never need it but learning is fun and understanding what jQuery is instead of hearing about it’s flaws on HN is a good idea.