3 ms·
I've never had a case where I didn't know the reason or mechanism by which an element would be hidden. In my code, I use the `hidden` property. In that case i
by recursive 3y ago
I've never had a case where I didn't know the reason or mechanism by which an element would be hidden. In my code, I use the `hidden` property. In that case it simplifies from
$(el).is(':hidden')
to
el.hidden
It's not quite as succint as your jquery, but you also could have written this.
document.querySelectorAll(".alert").forEach(el => el.hidden = false);
Is it less imperative? I mean I guess it doesn't have an explicit loop, but I don't really see why that's good or bad.
- The_Colonel 3y ago> I've never had a case where I didn't know the reason or mechanism by which an element would be hidden. Unfortunately, I usually don't keep the whole codebase in my head (including libraries), so I often don't know the reason. The more general point is that I don't want to have to know, because the mechanism of how it is hidden is not what I care about. > It's not quite as succint as your jquery, but you also could have written this. Yes, it's more than three times as long as the jQuery variant.
- recursive 3y agoOk, I get it. Fair points. I'm not a jquery hater. In a lot of cases, I'd rather write jquery than react for instance.