5 ms·

I've depended on jQuery, not a strictly front end designer myself but have done a bit of client side dev the past 20 years. If I had a choice, I'd go with one

I've depended on jQuery, not a strictly front end designer myself but have done a bit of client side dev the past 20 years. If I had a choice, I'd go with one of the reactive libraries, I've used Vue. For me, if you're relying on Javascript IMO it gets the job done quicker. It'd be interesting to see what jquery is used for in aggregation of all its usage. For me it was always selecting element(s) and XHR requests. With fetch (and a polyfill for IE), and the likes of querySelector it seems that a lot of the problems jquery solved have also been solved by the majority of popular browsers. I say that as a layman of client side dev, happy to be corrected.

cptrp2101 5y ago
You're bang on here. Why import an entire library when once polyfill and native features will serve you nicely.
dylan604 5y ago
I've never been a UI dev, but have frequently been forced to put a UI as a PoC that becomes production UI. ugh. I had always turned to JQuery just for the browser compatibility aspect. I got out of the game for a few years and have recently gotten back on the that horse. I turned to JQuery as that's what I knew. Now that supporting IE is no longer a thing, and since modern JS essentially includes the missing pieces JQuery filled. I am slowly converting to plain JS in aims of removing JQuery. I am awaiting my fetches with async functions in place of $.ajax with MDN pages in the next tab. Don't see how replacing one library of JQuery with another library like Vue/React/etc is any better. A crutch is a crutch by any other name.
- ricardo81 5y ago
  >replacing They're not so comparable TBH, the reactive element is the key difference. I can simply create logic, apply changes to the input data and the UI is updated. With jQuery you have to update the UI and data, far less easy. Point I was making is that if you're site relies on JS, I'd pick a reactive framework to do the heavy lifting.

cptrp2101 5y ago

You're bang on here. Why import an entire library when once polyfill and native features will serve you nicely.

dylan604 5y ago

I've never been a UI dev, but have frequently been forced to put a UI as a PoC that becomes production UI. ugh. I had always turned to JQuery just for the browser compatibility aspect. I got out of the game for a few years and have recently gotten back on the that horse. I turned to JQuery as that's what I knew. Now that supporting IE is no longer a thing, and since modern JS essentially includes the missing pieces JQuery filled. I am slowly converting to plain JS in aims of removing JQuery. I am awaiting my fetches with async functions in place of $.ajax with MDN pages in the next tab. Don't see how replacing one library of JQuery with another library like Vue/React/etc is any better. A crutch is a crutch by any other name.

ricardo81 5y ago
>replacing They're not so comparable TBH, the reactive element is the key difference. I can simply create logic, apply changes to the input data and the UI is updated. With jQuery you have to update the UI and data, far less easy. Point I was making is that if you're site relies on JS, I'd pick a reactive framework to do the heavy lifting.