4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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.