3 ms·

I do think other tech gets unfairly bound up with jquery in these sorts of posts. It makes it feel more like nostalgia than a real recommendation. Jquery isn’t

I do think other tech gets unfairly bound up with jquery in these sorts of posts. It makes it feel more like nostalgia than a real recommendation. Jquery isn’t going to make anything easier today. It’s definitely contemporary with this age of web development, but the expected standard library in a browser implementation of JavaScript (+css animations triggered by JavaScript) includes all of jquery’s features automatically. What you will get is more complex stack traces and a rather large dependency (large in comparison to no-dependency) that just unlocks a bespoke syntax for other JavaScript features. Places where you used jquery, can now be just JavaScript. It’s lovely to use like that actually! Everything else, totally agree with though!

ivape 1y ago
Nothing touches jQuery's intuitive $.animate. Just about everything has looked absurd since then. It's not really anyone's fault, these frameworks are not as flexible as they were made out to be. Small post-mortem.
- someothherguyy 1y ago
  The native animation API isn't that bad, and it is somewhat informed by the jQuery API. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Animations_API/Using_the_Web_Animations_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Animati...
luckylion 1y ago
The one thing I really miss from jQuery is the fluent interface. $(".someclass").hide() and all of them are hidden. document.querySelectorAll(".someclass").forEach(e => e.style.display = "none") is a lot more verbose. $(".someclass").addClass("something else") translates to document.querySelectorAll(".someclass").forEach(e => {e.classList.add("something");e.classList.add("else");}) so now you either write your own mini-abstraction over DOM methods or use some framework, even if the things you want to do absolutely do not need it.
- someothherguyy 1y ago
  classList.add is variadic, so a more honest implementation might be var _ = s => document.querySelectorAll(s) _('.someclass').forEach(e => {e.classList.add('something', 'else')})

ivape 1y ago

Nothing touches jQuery's intuitive $.animate. Just about everything has looked absurd since then. It's not really anyone's fault, these frameworks are not as flexible as they were made out to be. Small post-mortem.

someothherguyy 1y ago
The native animation API isn't that bad, and it is somewhat informed by the jQuery API. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Animations_API/Using_the_Web_Animations_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Animati...

luckylion 1y ago

The one thing I really miss from jQuery is the fluent interface. $(".someclass").hide() and all of them are hidden. document.querySelectorAll(".someclass").forEach(e => e.style.display = "none") is a lot more verbose. $(".someclass").addClass("something else") translates to document.querySelectorAll(".someclass").forEach(e => {e.classList.add("something");e.classList.add("else");}) so now you either write your own mini-abstraction over DOM methods or use some framework, even if the things you want to do absolutely do not need it.

someothherguyy 1y ago
classList.add is variadic, so a more honest implementation might be var _ = s => document.querySelectorAll(s) _('.someclass').forEach(e => {e.classList.add('something', 'else')})