3 ms·
Though for that little work, I'd rather have a small local library that implements what I need over standard DOM & JS parts instead of the full weight of jQuery
by dspillett 4y ago
Though for that little work, I'd rather have a small local library that implements what I need over standard DOM & JS parts instead of the full weight of jQuery.
Unless of course I need to support legacy browsers, then jQ is a no-brainer - that crap is solved there and I don't want to have to deal with it myself.
And while jQ is large compared to my little home-grown set of wrappers, it is small compared to all the other stuff many pages draw in these days, so perhaps size isn't a great metric to criticise it on!
- ulisesrmzroche 4y agothat crap is solved in a lot of places, jQuery is no longer the only library, and you don't need to support legacy browsers as much anymore, if at all Companies are getting more security-conscious because of all the hacks and the pain of keeping old browser support is no longer outweighing the risks of upgrading is my theory.
- psnehanshu 4y agoThere are tools like babel (even typescript) which can help you support older browsers.
- dspillett 4y agoFor personal projects I'm far beyond caring about ancient browsers. In DayJob well hopefully soon be dropping support for IE completely. Unless someone is specifically paying me to care then I don't need help supporting truly legacy UAs.