3 ms·
I'm not happy about it, but the reality is that 120kB is small potatoes in the modern web world. Would it be better without, sure? But there are bigger fish t
by basilgohar 5y ago
I'm not happy about it, but the reality is that 120kB is small potatoes in the modern web world. Would it be better without, sure? But there are bigger fish to fry. If jQuery helps the developer achieve their design and development goals, that will play out better for the end-user. It's not ideal, but it's realistic.
- onion2k 5y agoIf jQuery helps the developer achieve their design and development goals, that will play out better for the end-user. That's not the dilemma though. Developer can build solutions without jQuery. They'll be faster, smaller, and have fewer dependencies. Plus, if you're only using jQuery for DOM and events then it probably isn't helping you. Those are two areas where writing vanilla JS is can often be easier than writing the jQuery code to do the same job.
- handrous 5y agojQuery versus vanilla DOM is slower, larger, and adds dependencies. jQuery versus [framework of the month] is "faster, smaller, and [has] fewer dependencies". Simpler build, too, while still keeping you from having to worry about which browser supports what. Depends on what the most likely alternative is, then.
- onion2k 5y agoThere are plenty of modern frameworks that are smaller than jQuery (svelte, Preact, etc). In some apps they may also be faster. If you pick svelte there's the same number of dependencies.