3 ms·

I love jQuery. I can just drop in the library onto any existing webpage, and have almost complete control of the DOM with just a few lines of code. And the bui

I love jQuery. I can just drop in the library onto any existing webpage, and have almost complete control of the DOM with just a few lines of code. And the built in actions and animations are all so simple and perfect for the web. And the structure and naming is so good that I rarely need to look up any references anymore. I get that browser support isn't as important as it used to be, but it is nice to know that you can just use an effect in jQuery and it will just work exactly as you expect it.

dr-detroit 5y ago
note that jquery is already cached in browsers and infinitely more performant than some random low IQ web developers js bundle of the day
klysm 5y ago
I don’t know how universally true this is, but I find that the easier it is to write the first time, the harder it is to maintain. For example, it’s really easy to write a python script but it’s harder to change. It’s harder to use types on a program the first time but it’s easier to change. I think that’s the core of the issue here with peoples negative feelings about jQuery. Sure it’s super easy to make the page do the thing but it’s a long term mess almost always - especially compared to something with more built in structure.
- legitster 5y ago
  I'm not sure if that's true. I find jQuery much easier to maintain than vanilla or even some modern JS libraries. > $("#button").on('click', function(){ > $(".modal").slideUp(); > }); Obviously a simple example, but this is really easy to understand - even for a non-programmer! The equivalent vanilla JS to do this is honestly pretty nasty in comparison. The only problems I have seen when maintaining jQuery is when someone wants to drop in a bunch of custom functions they have designed in vanilla JS - or try to treat it as a replacement for a front-end framework. But for it's intended purpose of adding interactivity into HTML content, I think it is still the king.

dr-detroit 5y ago

note that jquery is already cached in browsers and infinitely more performant than some random low IQ web developers js bundle of the day

klysm 5y ago

I don’t know how universally true this is, but I find that the easier it is to write the first time, the harder it is to maintain. For example, it’s really easy to write a python script but it’s harder to change. It’s harder to use types on a program the first time but it’s easier to change. I think that’s the core of the issue here with peoples negative feelings about jQuery. Sure it’s super easy to make the page do the thing but it’s a long term mess almost always - especially compared to something with more built in structure.

legitster 5y ago
I'm not sure if that's true. I find jQuery much easier to maintain than vanilla or even some modern JS libraries. > $("#button").on('click', function(){ > $(".modal").slideUp(); > }); Obviously a simple example, but this is really easy to understand - even for a non-programmer! The equivalent vanilla JS to do this is honestly pretty nasty in comparison. The only problems I have seen when maintaining jQuery is when someone wants to drop in a bunch of custom functions they have designed in vanilla JS - or try to treat it as a replacement for a front-end framework. But for it's intended purpose of adding interactivity into HTML content, I think it is still the king.