7 ms·
jQuery 4.0 99% Complete
- sshine 3y agoI wonder if the footprint got smaller or bigger.
- sysadm1n 3y agoIt does not matter that much, relatively speaking. People include 1MB font libraries in their site without a care in the world, and force 1-2MB PNGs and JPEGs down the wire without caring. A few extra bytes in jQuery is nothing compared to that.
- pavel_lishin 3y agoEspecially if it's served from a CDN, and thus likely already cached. Then again, how many folks are using jquery these days? It might be more rare than I think.
- CharlesW 3y ago> Especially if it's served from a CDN, and thus likely already cached. Browsers no longer do cross-site resource caching. https://www.stefanjudis.com/notes/say-goodbye-to-resource-caching-across-sites-and-domains/ https://www.stefanjudis.com/notes/say-goodbye-to-resource-ca...
- pavel_lishin 3y agoAh, shows how much I know about front-end stuff these days!
- porridgeraisin 3y agoYeah. However, it does matter in interactive websites because if the js is light it'll load fast and execute fast and you'll have interactivity sooner. It may be the case that images can be loaded later or arent even visible on the home page. And fonts of course will be replaced once they are loaded and the defaults will be used while it loads so it's progressive in a way.
- lofaszvanitt 3y agoInteractive websites are slow because they are including 1 MB frontend frameworks... and use these bloated modern frameworks to set a class on an element.
- porridgeraisin 3y agoYes, I was just pointing out why having huge fonts/images isnt as big of a blocker as huge JS on today's JS heavy apps with "loading placeholders" and what not. The browser also does font replacement fairly smoothly. Whether this whole bazaar is ideal or not is a separate issue :)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- alserio 3y agojs and images are not directly comparable, you also need to consider that the js has to be parsed and evaluated. so it really depends: it may matter
- rchaud 3y agojQuery's footprint is 70KB for the minified version. There are thumbnail images that are bigger.
- asadkn 3y agoJust leaving this here since people will wonder the relevance of jQuery today. > jQuery is used by 94.5% of all the websites whose JavaScript library we know. This is 77.4% of all websites. https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/js-jquery https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/js-jquery
- madduci 3y agoHow many of them are WordPress installations or sites running Bootstrap?
- redder23 3y agoModern WordPress themes do not use jQuery on the front-end. Bootstrap does not require jQuery. Not sure if ever but not since 3.0 and were are at 5.0 at this point.
- Waterluvian 3y agoThat’s a shocking number. I wonder how much of that is just duplicated instances of some standard template, Wordpress, whatnot.
- not_your_vase 3y agoChances are you have "ed" installed on your currently used machine, but I doubt it was ever opened. With that said, I'm quite surprised that jQuery is not abandoned, barely heard about it in the past decade or so. I suspect also that it is mostly part of boilerplate coming from other libraries and frameworks, and rarely intentional.
- vasdae 3y agoI write jquery almost every day for work (I work on wordpress sites)
- V__ 3y agoIt has been a long time since I used jQuery. What exactly is the usecase today? Is it just syntactic sugar or has it changed significantly?
- knoebber 3y agoI think the main use case today is the dom traversal API. It makes operations like "add the 'error' class to all <input> elements in the form" simple: $('#some-form').find('input').addClass('error') Obviously you can do this in vanilla JS, but it's more cumbersome so you'll probably end up rewriting your own less complete version of jquery. There is some value to using a well worn library with public documentation that other developers can find/extend instead of a home grown solution. With that said, I wouldn't use it for a green field project. For sites that require lots of interactivity I would pick a modern front end framework that doesn't require this kind of manual dom traversal (probably phoenix/liveview).
- sysrpl 3y agoIs it that hard to: document.querySelectorAll("#some-form input").forEach(e => e.classList.add("error"));
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dbbk 3y agoNo it's not
- petre 3y agoI almost always fall back to jq if it's loaded, vanilla js APIs are so annoying.
- WorldMaker 3y agoMostly off the top of my head: document.getElementById('some-form').getElementsByTagName('input').forEach(i => i.classList.add('error')) It is a little more verbose but it isn't that much more cumbersome today. That's also doing things "the right way" and not do-all selectors, but that option exists now, too: document.querySelectorAll('#some-form > input').forEach(i => i.classList.add('error')) If you want to make it a little less verbose: const $ = document.querySelectorAll const addClass = (className) => (item) => item.classList.add(className) $('#some-form > input').forEach(addClass('error'))
- hnarn 3y agoIs there some kind of summary available somewhere of what features are “unique” to jQuery (or at least significantly easier), and what features are now generally available as vanilla JS or CSS? I’m not a JS developer and I just have a basic understanding of what jQuery is used for, so I’d be interested in seeing some kind of historical timeline, both to better understand why jQuery was originally created, and to understand what purpose it might fill today (legacy dependencies excluded).
- iKlsR 3y agohttps://youmightnotneedjquery.com/ https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/
- retrochameleon 3y agoPerfect
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoQuite a feel of those seem like while you don't need jQuery (so the site is indeed actually named), it's still often easier. Doubly so when you consider that the non-jQuery methods don't always chain together. Admittedly I'm usually using it in places where loading the extra library is not an issue, so if you're really going for slimline, then sure.
- rchaud 3y agoI've always thought that about this site. If they were trying to ease people off jQuery, showing the vanilla JS equivalent side by side is not going to have the desired impact!
- lofaszvanitt 3y agoThis site perfectly shows why jQuery still rocks.
- open-paren 3y agoOff the top of my head, jQuery has some unique selectors that aren't replicated in vanilla CSS, like :eq()
- absqueued 3y agoLove it how the homepage hasn't change in years.
- frakkingcylons 3y agoIt's very on brand with "Write less, do more".
- rwaksmunski 3y agoThe younglings don't seem to appreciate what a godsend jQuery was back in the day, it gave you a decent API that worked on all browsers, including IE6. HTMX nowadays is giving off a similar vibe, it gets you 95% there without modern JS insanity/complexity.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoI can't speak to HTMX, but 1000% with jquery.
- rchaud 3y agoI use jQuery for JS for the same reason I use Twig for PHP.....it's way simpler to write functions to get things done. People keep telling me to switch to ES6 but I'm never upgrading. Why would I? jQuery just feels like a good pair of jeans.
- kavaruka 3y agoyou can (should) use jQuery with ES6+
- dave333 3y agoLooking back jquery was probably the only frontend framework that wasn't obsolete in 18 months. There is also value in keeping things the same over a decade or more so the old farts can still be productive without having to relearn everything every couple of years.