5 ms·

I wish JS would get all the nice jQuery features, like all the css selectors jQuery has, like a nice feature would be when you retive an HtmlElementCollection

I wish JS would get all the nice jQuery features, like all the css selectors jQuery has, like a nice feature would be when you retive an HtmlElementCollection to be able to apply some transformation to all elements without having to write a for, or make use Array.from and then use forEach. But I agree I would not use jQuery in new project and when possible I would replace jQuery in existing code too.

Someone1234 4y ago
That's what everyone keeps missing. Can vanilla do what jQuery can? Of course, and that has always been true. What jQuery (and similar) offer is quality of life stuff, vanilla has never even tried to offer. This is still an ecosystem without a standard library and with no consistent design style/layout. It is janky and bad. It being "less bad than it used to be" isn't the shiny endorsement that everyone thinks it is.
- nikanj 4y ago
  jQuery is implemented in vanilla JS, thus logically all of it’s features can be done vanilla JS
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - 0xFF0123 4y ago
    That's a bit like saying everyone should code in assembly. The argument isn't whether it's possible, but whether it's easier / more efficient.
    - nikanj 4y ago
      I guess I should have added more meat to my comment: It’s frustrating when people reject a good tool like jQuery, with the argument that the same functionality can be achieved with just vanilla JS.
  - adamisom 4y ago
    That is generally true and not really specific to jquery
acdha 4y ago
> to be able to apply some transformation to all elements without having to write a for, or make use Array.from and then use forEach. This has worked for many years. I typically add a shorthand $ for the QSA part and on projects where I used to support IE11 you could add Array.from there but I haven’t bothered since IE was deprecated. jQuery does more but some of those things had performance impacts which were worth thinking about and the combo of QSA and fetch took care about about 90% of my projects. document.querySelectorAll("div").forEach(i => i.innerText = "test")
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
megous 4y ago
You can extend HtmlElementCollection prototype with any methods you like. (it's NodeList, btw, what's returned from querySelectorAll)
- strbean 4y ago
  My understanding is that mutating built in prototypes is very bad. Not just for interop reasons, but because doing so really hinders many optimizations javascript engines perform.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    Adding methods to prototypes is effectively free. The only time mutating a builtin prototype has negative consequences is when you replace a builtin function with your own thing. All javascript engines (that I'm aware of) JIT at the method level so there's not really a performance impact modifying a prototype.
    - strbean 4y ago
      Ah, I think this is what I was thinking of: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/The_performance_hazards_of_prototype_mutation https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/The_... It seems this only pertains specifically to overwriting the __proto__ of an existing object (the is the prototype of other things).
- simion314 4y ago
  There is an issue you need to be aware , be careful if you hide the fact that this collection is "live". I mean this part from the docs >An HTMLCollection in the HTML DOM is live; it is automatically updated when the underlying document is changed. For this reason it is a good idea to make a copy (eg. using Array.from) to iterate over if adding, moving, or removing nodes. So you need something that will also be efficient and correct, not a 5 minutes implementation.
  - megous 4y ago

Someone1234 4y ago

That's what everyone keeps missing. Can vanilla do what jQuery can? Of course, and that has always been true. What jQuery (and similar) offer is quality of life stuff, vanilla has never even tried to offer. This is still an ecosystem without a standard library and with no consistent design style/layout. It is janky and bad. It being "less bad than it used to be" isn't the shiny endorsement that everyone thinks it is.

nikanj 4y ago
jQuery is implemented in vanilla JS, thus logically all of it’s features can be done vanilla JS
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 0xFF0123 4y ago
  That's a bit like saying everyone should code in assembly. The argument isn't whether it's possible, but whether it's easier / more efficient.
  - nikanj 4y ago
    I guess I should have added more meat to my comment: It’s frustrating when people reject a good tool like jQuery, with the argument that the same functionality can be achieved with just vanilla JS.
- adamisom 4y ago
  That is generally true and not really specific to jquery

acdha 4y ago

> to be able to apply some transformation to all elements without having to write a for, or make use Array.from and then use forEach. This has worked for many years. I typically add a shorthand $ for the QSA part and on projects where I used to support IE11 you could add Array.from there but I haven’t bothered since IE was deprecated. jQuery does more but some of those things had performance impacts which were worth thinking about and the combo of QSA and fetch took care about about 90% of my projects. document.querySelectorAll("div").forEach(i => i.innerText = "test")

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

megous 4y ago

You can extend HtmlElementCollection prototype with any methods you like. (it's NodeList, btw, what's returned from querySelectorAll)

strbean 4y ago
My understanding is that mutating built in prototypes is very bad. Not just for interop reasons, but because doing so really hinders many optimizations javascript engines perform.
- cogman10 4y ago
  Adding methods to prototypes is effectively free. The only time mutating a builtin prototype has negative consequences is when you replace a builtin function with your own thing. All javascript engines (that I'm aware of) JIT at the method level so there's not really a performance impact modifying a prototype.
  - strbean 4y ago
    Ah, I think this is what I was thinking of: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/The_performance_hazards_of_prototype_mutation https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/The_... It seems this only pertains specifically to overwriting the __proto__ of an existing object (the is the prototype of other things).
simion314 4y ago
There is an issue you need to be aware , be careful if you hide the fact that this collection is "live". I mean this part from the docs >An HTMLCollection in the HTML DOM is live; it is automatically updated when the underlying document is changed. For this reason it is a good idea to make a copy (eg. using Array.from) to iterate over if adding, moving, or removing nodes. So you need something that will also be efficient and correct, not a 5 minutes implementation.
- megous 4y ago