13 ms·
jQuery 4
- rationably 9mo agoUnbelievably, still supports IE 11 which is scheduled to be deprecated in jQuery 5.0
- tartoran 9mo agoBackwards compatibility. Apparently there are still some people stuck on IE11. It's nice that jQuery still supports those users and the products that they are still running.
- phinnaeus 9mo agoAre those people/products upgrading jQuery though?
- jbullock35 9mo agoWho is still stuck on IE 11---and why?
- ejmatta 9mo agoSome corporate machines still run XP. Why upgrade what works?
- ExpertAdvisor01 9mo agoSECURITY
- Joel_Mckay 9mo agoYet it would still run Windows Adware edition. =3
- LtdJorge 9mo agoUse Enterprise
- Joel_Mckay 9mo agoEnterprise Adware? Sounds hilarious to people that already paid $190 USD/seat to get spammed. In general, Windows has always belonged on a VM snapshot backing image. =3
- ddtaylor 9mo agoI think anything still using ActiveX like stuff or "native" things. Sure, it should all be dead and gone, but some might not be and there is no path forward with any of that AFAIK.
- flomo 9mo agoThere are some really retrograde government and bigcorps, running ten year old infrastructure. And if that is your customer-base? You do it. Plus I worked on a consumer launch site for something you might remember, and we got the late requirement for IE7 support, because that's what the executives in Japan had. No customers cared, but yeah it worked in IE7.
- jbullock35 9mo agoOh, certainly, corporations run ten-year-old software. But for the record, IE 11 turns 13 this year [1]. Which makes it somewhat more surprising to me. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_11
- layer8 9mo agoMicrosoft will support IE 11 until 2032.
- kstrauser 9mo agoMy reading is that they’ll support Edge’s IE 11 compatibility mode until then, but that IE 11 is already EOLed except for a couple of extremely niche enterprise versions.
- layer8 9mo agoThe IE 11 desktop application remains supported on a number of Windows LTSC versions: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/windows-itpro-blog/internet-explorer-11-desktop-app-retirement-faq/2366549 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/windows-itpro-blog/... At least one of them, Windows 10 IoT LTSC, will receive support until 2032.
- simondotau 9mo agoSurely by this point someone has written a 0-day for MSIE 11 which gets root and silently installs an Internet Explorer skinned Chromium. If not, someone should get onto that. —Signed, everyone
- wqweto 9mo agoLast available Chromium on XP has 0-days too, so not a big win.
- simondotau 9mo agoThe goal isn’t to make XP machines more secure, so that’s not a problem.
- epolanski 9mo agoOne of my clients in the past had, as of 2020, noticeable traffic from IE8, 9 and IE11. When I say noticeable I mean 10%+ out of million users. It followed the 8-17 monday-friday pattern. Essentially it was people at their work machines (posts, banks, etc) running corporate computers where modern browsers were not installed. We had a computer for manually testing every release on IE8 and 9. If somebody is looking for our products from those computers, we aren't gonna lose them. But as far as I know, that client dropped support for IE8 and IE9 in 2024 with IE11 planned to be dropped this year.
- kstrauser 9mo agoThis is the part that I find the strangest: > We also dropped support for other very old browsers, including Edge Legacy, iOS versions earlier than the last 3, Firefox versions earlier than the last 2 (aside from Firefox ESR), and Android Browser. Safari from iOS 16, released in 2022, is more modern in every conceivable way than MSIE 11. I'd also bet there are more people stuck with iOS 16- than those who can only use IE 11, except maybe at companies with horrid IT departments, in which case I kind of see this as enabling them to continue to suck. I'd vote to rip the bandaid off. MSIE is dead tech, deader than some of the other browsers they're deprecating. Let it fade into ignomony as soon as possible.
- sebazzz 9mo ago“Support” here probably means “we’re testing jQuery for compatibility on those web browsers” - likely Safari from iOS 16 still runs this version of jQuery just fine. However, running automated test suites or support bugfixing for those clients is a lot harder than spinning up some Microsoft-provided VM with IE11 on it.
- troupo 9mo ago> Safari from iOS 16, released in 2022, is more modern in every conceivable way than MSIE 11. There are likely millions if not tens of millions of computers still running MSIE11. There are likely to be no devices running iOS 16
- kstrauser 9mo agoAccording to Cloudflare, there are almost no users still on MSIE of any version.[0] Statcounter says there are about 4.6% of iOS users still on iOS 16.[1] My gut instinct is that there are multiple times more people using iOS 16 today than MSIE of any version. [0] https://radar.cloudflare.com/reports/browser-market-share-2025-q3 https://radar.cloudflare.com/reports/browser-market-share-20... [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/ios/mobile-tablet/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-version-market-share/ios/mobil...
- ulrischa 9mo agoNot everybody in the world can use modern hard- and software. There are tons of school computer labs running old software
- indolering 9mo agoIt looks like it was done to not delay the 4.0 release. Since they follow semvar, that means it won't get the axe until 5.0 [1]. Pretty wild considering that 3.0 was released 10 years ago. But maybe they will scope this one better: they were talking about getting 4.0 released in 2020 back in 2019! [1]: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/5077 https://github.com/jquery/jquery/pull/5077 [2]: https://github.com/jquery/jquery/issues/4299 https://github.com/jquery/jquery/issues/4299
- layer8 9mo agoMicrosoft will support IE 11 until 2032 in Windows 10 LTSC and IE Mode in Edge on Windows 11.
- b3ing 9mo agoNice to see it still around and updated. The sad part is I guess this means React will be around in 2060.
- b65e8bee43c2ed0 9mo agothere are already de facto two Reacts. by 2060, there will be five.
- 2muchcoffeeman 9mo agoTwo Reacts!?
- exac 9mo agoAs someone who doesn't use React, there is React Native (for iOS & Android), and React (and that can be server-rendered or client-rendered).
- psnehanshu 9mo agoThere's also React Native Web
- underdeserver 9mo agoI'm sorry what
- maxloh 9mo agoEven after migrating to ES modules, jQuery is still somewhat bloated. It is 27 kB (minified + gzipped) [0]. In comparison, Preact is only 4.7 kB [1]. [0]: https://bundlephobia.com/package/jquery@4.0.0 https://bundlephobia.com/package/jquery@4.0.0 [1]: https://bundlephobia.com/package/preact@10.28.2 https://bundlephobia.com/package/preact@10.28.2
- onion2k 9mo agojQuery does a lot more though, and includes support older browsers.
- ZeroAurora 9mo agoOfficially they state they only support 2 latest versions of chrome. But considering their support of IE11, that's actually a lot.
- halapro 9mo ago> includes support older browsers Which is entirely the issue. Supporting a browser for the 10 users who will update jQuery in 2025 is insane.
- mejutoco 9mo agoBreaking backwards compatibility to turn 27kb into less because of "bloat" makes less sense to me.
- shevy-java 9mo agoIt is definitely more than 10 users.
- halapro 9mo ago12
- topspin 9mo ago> Preact is only 4.7 kB Is there some outlier place where people using virtual DOM frameworks don't also include 100-200kb of "ecosystem" in addition to the framework? I suppose anything is possible, but I've never actually seen it. I have seen jQuery only sites. You get a lot for ~27kB.
- MarkdownConvert 9mo agoLong-time user here. It served me well for years, though I haven't really touched it since the 3.0 days. Glad to see it's still being maintained.
- tonijn 9mo agoNo love for $…?
- netbioserror 9mo agoI was surprised that for most of my smaller use cases, Zepto.js was a drop-in replacement that worked well. I do need to try the jQuery slim builds, I've never explored that.
- NetOpWibby 9mo agoZepto! That's a name I haven't heard in years. I don't remember how it happened but I'm still a member of the ZeptoJS org on Github.
- indolering 9mo agoI really like that project! Why don't y'all hand it over to someone willing to do maintenance or at least archive it?
- NetOpWibby 9mo agoWho wants to do maintenance? Open an issue.
- karim79 9mo agoStill one of my favourite libs on the whole planet. I will always love jQuery. It is responsible for my career in (real) companies. Live on jQuery! Go forth and multiply!
- sieep 9mo agoall these kids chasing the new frameworks...jQuery and .NET framework have always kept me fed!
- metaltyphoon 9mo agoI mean… jQuery and .NET (6+) can still feed you very well :D
- sieep 9mo agobelieve me if it was up to me I would get off framework this week hahaha
- ei8ths 9mo agoso true, 15 years of jQuery for me, it's my go to.
- radicalethics 9mo agoSomeone should just hook up a virtual dom to jQuery, it's got a whole plugin ecosystem that AI could really re-use. Jquery + Jquery UI + Jquery Plugins + AI is probably a super power we're all overlooking.
- cj 9mo agoThe first time I read this I assumed you were joking about hooking up a virtual dom. But I think you're being serious. Why hook up a virtual dom when you have a real one? Unless you're saying AI can't interact reliably with a real browser yet.
- alexchantavy 9mo ago
- jusonchan81 9mo agoThe first time I truly enjoyed web development was when I got the hang of jQuery. Made everything so much simple and usable!
- Joel_Mckay 9mo agojQuery made a messy ecosystem slightly less fragmented. Combined with CKEditor it effectively tamed a lot of web-developer chaos until nodejs dropped. =3
- blakewatson 9mo agoRelated: This is a nice write-up of how to write reactive jQuery. It's presented as an alternative to jQuery spaghetti code, in the context of being in a legacy codebase where you might not have access to newer frameworks. https://css-tricks.com/reactive-jquery-for-spaghetti-fied-legacy-codebases-or-when-you-cant-have-nice-things/ https://css-tricks.com/reactive-jquery-for-spaghetti-fied-le...
- Klaster_1 9mo agoI used this approach before and it indeed works better than the 2010-style jQuery mess. A good fit for userscripts too, where the problem you attempt to solve is fairly limited and having dependencies, especially with a build steps, is a pain. Note that you don't need jQuery for this at all, unless you are somehow stuck with ancient browser support as a requirement - querySelector, addEventListener, innerHtml - the basic building blocks of the approach - have been available and stable for a long time.
- doix 9mo agoUnfortunately, nowadays writing userscripts is much harder than it used to be. Most websites are using some sort of reactive FE framework so you need to make extensive use of mutationObservers (or whatever the equivalent is in jQuery I guess).
- Klaster_1 9mo agoVery true. I guess that depends on what websites you find issues with? I just checked mine and all of those are quality of life improvements for fully server rendered sites like HN or phpBB forums.
- doix 9mo agoYeah, I mostly use it for QoL improvements but for work related things. So Jira, Bitbucket, GitHub, Linear etc. basically whatever my employer uses. Back in the early 2010s most of that software was fully server rendered. Nowadays it's pretty rare for that to be the case. I just try and get LLMs to do it for me because I'm lazy, and they like to use setInterval instead of mutationObservers and if it works, I just live with the inefficiency.
- gocsjess 9mo agojQuery is v4 now, but a lot of sites esp. wordpress still have 1.11 or 1.12 and only uses them to either doing modals(popover), show/hide(display), or ajax(fetch).
- madduci 9mo agoThis is huge. jQuery is still my way to go for any website requiring some custom interaction that isn't available in vanilla js.
- tpoacher 9mo agostill needs more jQuery
- NetOpWibby 9mo agoI remember being scared of jQuery and then being scared of vanilla JS. My, how time flies. Incredible it's still being maintained.
- giancarlostoro 9mo agoSame experience I had! Impostor syndrome is a pain.
- indolering 9mo agoI love that they support ES6 modules, Trusted Types, and CSP! The clearing out of old APIs that have platform replacements is nice to see too!
- chao- 9mo agoI cannot express how much I admire the amount of effort jQuery puts into their upgrade tools.
- phatskat 9mo agoI’ve found similar quality in the more recent Storybook upgrade tools - clean CLI wizard, clear error messages, and it does a good job of examining your setup and letting you know what it can and can’t upgrade automatically, with clear instructions on the parts you need to handle yourself.
- maxpert 9mo agojQuery is the last time I felt a library doing magic! Nothing has matched the feelings since then.
- Minor49er 9mo agoNot even modern vanilla JavaScript?
- marticode 9mo agoIt's fairly close now but so much more verbose: ie document.getElementById('theID') vs $('#theID')
- majewsky 9mo agoNearly every time I write something in JavaScript, the first line is const $ = (selector) => document.querySelector(selector). I do not have jQuery nostalgia as much as many others here, but that particular shorthand is very useful. For extra flavor, const $$ = (selector) => document.querySelectorAll(selector) on top.
- SahAssar 9mo agoconst $$ = (selector) => Array.from(document.querySelectorAll(selector)) is even nicer since then you can do things like $$('.myclass').map(e => stuff)
- yread 9mo agoHmm maybe i can finally move on from 2.x
- ulrischa 9mo agoI still love the simplicity a ajax call can be done in Jquery
- gethly 9mo agojQuery was peak JavaScript. Good times, I'm glad it is still around.
- shevy-java 9mo agoIt is still used by many websites.
- marticode 9mo agoIndeed. Though a lot of its feature found their way into plain vanilla Javascript and browsers, the syntax is still so much easier with jQuery.
- kulahan 9mo agoThe clean and simple syntax was always the reason to use jQuery. I remember seeing sites that were anti-JQ, so they'd show how you could replace a single jQuery line with 9 vanilla JS lines and uh... somehow this would improve things? I can't believe how much public opinion has changed over the years. Love it, actually.
- shevy-java 9mo agoI am still using jQuery.
- flomo 9mo agoWhenever HTMX comes up here, I always think "isn't that just some gobbledy-gook which replaces about 3 lines of imperative jquery?" Anyway, jQuery always did the job, use it forever if it solves your problems.
- gbalduzzi 9mo agoThe problem with jQuery is that, being imperative, it quickly becomes complex when you need to handle more than one thing because you need to cover imperatively all cases.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- flomo 9mo agoYeah, that's the other HN koan about "You probably don't need React if..." But if you are using jquery/vanilla to shove state into your HTML, you probably actually do need something like react.
- epolanski 9mo agoIt's not really about state but dom updates.
- flomo 9mo agoAfter having some time to think about it, I've seen some really perverse DOM stuff in jquery. Like $(el).next().children(3) type stuff. So I think this stuff really fell-over when there was 'too much state' for the DOM.
- phatskat 9mo agoI think if you want to go high-dom manipulation a la jQuery, and want some form of complex state, storing the state _on_ the DOM might make sense? Things like data attributes and such, but I also feel like that’s itching for something more like htmx or maybe svelte (I’ve not looked into either enough, so I may be completely off base). I do agree with the notion that jQuery is easy to mishandle when logic grows beyond a pretty narrow (mostly stateless) scope. It’s fantastic up until that point, and incredibly easy to footgun beyond it.
- lrvick 9mo agoEverything I ever used jquery for 15 years ago, I found myself able to do with the CSS and the JS standard library maybe 10 years ago. I honestly am confused when I see jquery used today for anything. Is there still anything jquery does you cannot easily do with a couple lines of stdlib?
- jampekka 9mo agoJquery does many things in one line that requires a couple lines of stdlib. Writing less code is what libraries are for.
- glemion43 9mo agoUntil you have to upgrade it and it bites you
- jampekka 9mo agojQuery's big point was to give a consistent API over inconsistent browser implementations, so it typically saves you from bites more often than it bites you.
- tracker1 9mo agojQuery, for as long as it's been around has had very few major releases, 4 now.. and very few breaking changes... hardly "biting" ... other than those sites that are injecting a half dozen different copies of jQuery from different modules, and who knows which one you're actually working with, let alone 3rd party payloads. I mean, personally, I've mostly used React the past decade and any integration directly to the browser has been straight JS/TS... but I can still see how jQuery can be useful for its' conveniences.
- simondotau 9mo agoThe terse and chainable jQuery syntax is more readable, easier to remember, and thus more pleasant to maintain. Rewriting for stdlib is easy, but bloats out the code by forcing you to pepper in redundant boilerplate on nearly every line.
- hypnot 9mo agoIt's amazing how much jQuery is still used today. Even on modern websites you can often find it included (browser devtools -> jQuery in the console, and see). And not just on hobbyist sites, but on serious company websites and their web tools as well.
- KellyCriterion 9mo agoCurious: Whats the current behemoth instead of JQ? I perceive it as still being the de-facto standard?
- johanyc 9mo agois there any reason to use jquery if you've never used it before
- modarts 9mo agoDon’t let all of the old heads glazing jquery in this thread confuse you - they’re just nostalgic. There’s no reason to even think of using jquery in 2026
- thunderfork 9mo agoGenerally speaking, no, since a lot of what it does is now available natively, the odds that you'll need something from it are much lower. There's probably some corner-case stuff it still makes easier if you're not using some framework, but I don't think there's a reason to go out of your way to use it just for the sake of using it.
- hu3 9mo agoif you need to sprinkle interactivity, jQuery is much more approachable than spa libraries like react. maybe use Vue or something like mithril which doesn't require build. But jQuery is short and easy to grasp.
- thrownawaysz 9mo ago[flagged]
- pseudocomposer 9mo agoI might argue the opposite. What would that have added to this release?
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- rtbruhan00 9mo agoIt’s refreshing to see jQuery 4
- AdrianB1 9mo agoI used jQuery for the past ~ 10 years on smaller apps and I had no problems with it. Then I slowly replaced it with modern JS wherever possible and I found that today I am using jQuery only because Datatables.js depends on it. It was a nice ride, many thanks to the people that worked and still work on it. Not sure we'll ever see a jQuery 5, but that's life.
- ttoinou 9mo agoI love jQuery and it’s elegant methods chaining over object / array of DOM elements you keep in the chain. 15+ years ago I wrote a tutorial for french people about using jQuery, it got a lot of views. I hope it helped spread jQuery.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- pocketarc 9mo ago> includes some breaking changes Most of the changes are completely reasonable - a lot are internal cleanup that would require no code changes on the user side, dropping older browsers, etc. But the fact that there are breaking API changes is the most surprising thing to me. Projects that still use jQuery are going to be mostly legacy projects (I myself have several lying around). Breaking changes means more of an upgrade hassle on something that's already not worth much of an upgrade hassle to begin with. Removing things like `jQuery.isArray` serve only to make the upgrade path harder - the internal jQuery function code could literally just be `Array.isArray`, but at least then you wouldn't be breaking jQuery users' existing code. At some point in the life of projects like these, I feel like they should accept their place in history and stop themselves breaking compatibility with any of the countless thousands (millions!) of their users' projects. Just be a good clean library that one can keep using without having to think about it forever and ever.
- wartijn_ 9mo agoI don’t understand your use case. If you’ve got legacy projects that you don’t want to touch, why upgrade a dependency to a new major version? You can keep using jquery without having to think about it. Just keep using version 3.7 and don’t even think about version 4.
- Zardoz84 9mo agoTo fix vulnerabilities? I recently had to upgrade from jQuery 2 to the latest version, because an client demanded it (security issues), and just ran into compatibility issues with third party libs/plugins.
- g947o 9mo agoI thought this would include more drastic changes, but it seems that this is more house cleaning stuff, like, "nobody should really be using this in 2026". They are providing a library for someone who really likes jQuery and wants to use it over something like React. (Which is completely fine and reasonable.) Looks like the core behavior doesn't change, something that people complain about, e.g. https://github.blog/engineering/engineering-principles/removing-jquery-from-github-frontend/ https://github.blog/engineering/engineering-principles/remov... > This syntax is simple to write, but to our standards, doesn’t communicate intent really well. Did the author expect one or more js-widget elements on this page? Also, if we update our page markup and accidentally leave out the js-widget classname, will an exception in the browser inform us that something went wrong? By default, jQuery silently skips the whole expresion when nothing matched the initial selector; but to us, such behavior was a bug rather than a feature. I completely agree with this, because I have been bitten so many times by this from subtle bugs. However I can see some other people not caring about any of it. I already know that I am definitely not going to use jQuery in my personal projects, and there is no chance that my workspace does. (I much prefer letting a framework handle rendering for me based on data binding.) So none of that concerns me. But good luck to jQuery and anyone who sticks with it.
- admiralrohan 9mo agoWhat is the usecase for this in the age of React, NextJS? And for static sites we have Astro etc. And even if you need something simple why use jQuery? Vanila JS has better API now. Am I missing anything?
- temporallobe 9mo agoI do a lot of custom JS widget development, games, and utilities that are outside the context of a gigantic framework like React. Not everything is a a full-page SPA. Vanilla JS is indeed better than it was, but I found myself writing small JQ-like libraries and utilities to do tedious or even basic DOM manipulation, so I switched back to JQ and saved myself a lot of time and headaches. Compressed, minified JQ is also pretty small and is negligible in space consumption. JQ is also used in frameworks like Bootstrap (although I think they’re trying to drop third-party dependencies like this since they tend to cause conflicts). I have also used JQ in an Angular app where complex on-the-fly DOM manipulation just isn’t practical with standard tooling.
- hotgeart 9mo agoHobbyists don’t want to learn every new framework. Someone can have a small business website for their activity and have been happy using jQuery since 2010.
- admiralrohan 9mo agoGot it. Maintenance of Legacy websites is a big chunk of internet.
- senfiaj 9mo agojQuery was very useful when many features were missing or not consistent/standardized between browsers. Nowadays, JS / DOM API is very rich, mature and standardized. So, jQuery is not as necessary as it was before. https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/ https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/ Yes, sometimes the vanilla JS analogs are not the most elegant, but the vast majority are not terribly complicated either. IMHO, another advantage of vanilla JS (aside from saving ~30KB) is potentially easier debugging. For example, I could find / debug the event listeners using the dev tools more easily when they were implemented via vanilla JS, since for complicated event listeners I had to step through a lot of jQuery code.
- padjo 9mo agoThat bit about focus event order gave me flashbacks and raised my heart rate by a couple of bpm. Had some bad times with that ~15 years ago!
- bikamonki 9mo agoFor us that started doing web apps as soon as the web was invented, JQ was a miracle. Thanks guys!
- Pikamander2 9mo agoThat changelog is wild; it closes out dozens of issues that have been open on Github for 5+ years. I assume that's related to this being the first new major version in years. Has anyone done any benchmarks yet to see how jQuery 4 compares to jQuery 3.7?
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- nashashmi 9mo agoI wish it also included support for XPath Query.
- ksec 9mo ago20 Years! I remember when jQuery first release I thought in 5 to 10 years time we wont need jQuery because everything jQuery has will be built into the browser or becomes part of HTML Spec. But then Google, Chrome, iPhone, PWA or JS for everything took over and took a completely different path to what I imagine webpage would be.
- alphax314 9mo agoAmazing oss library, glad its still being maintained!
- hk1337 9mo agoMeh. I was a Mootools connoisseur back in the day and saddened how jQuery became more popular. I’m glad JavaScript has evolved to the point we don’t need jQuery anymore.
- thm 9mo agoOkay, your turn, script.aculo.us & Mootools.
- thrownaway561 9mo agothere are 2 frameworks I haven't had of in some time.
- bni 9mo agoPrototype
- goykasi 9mo agoIve never been a frontend guy, although I was a heavy user of jquery when I needed it. But I cant help but stick to my roots.... LONG LIVE PROTOYPE!
- ethagnawl 9mo agoPrototype was great when it first landed but I found jQuery to be so much more elegant and fluid. For example, the overloaded $(...) which I'm pretty certain we have to thank for querySelectorAll.
- nprateem 9mo agoWhat's jquery? I only use dynamic drive for my DHTML
- alnico 9mo agoCongrats to everyone involved in the jQuery 4.0 release. For what it’s worth, if you’re looking for a more structured approach on top of jQuery, JsViews (https://jsviews.com https://jsviews.com) provides a reactive templating and data-binding system that’s been around and stable for many years. It hasn’t seen the same level of adoption as newer frameworks, but it may still be of interest to people who prefer the jQuery ecosystem.
- vanderZwan 9mo agoThat looks interesting, I'm not likely to write any jQuery any time soon, but I'll check out the source code to see if I can learn anything from it. Regarding adoption levels, the JsViews website made me think I had accidentally toggled the "Desktop Site" option in my Iceweasel browser, I wonder if that scared people off. Or perhaps it's because, as others mentioned, most jQuery development these days is in legacy codebases where the devs are not allowed to add any new libraries, reducing the adoption rates of any new jQuery libraries even more than you'd expect based on the raw nrs of jQuery users. (the website does work though, and it loads fast. Which is something I've always appreciated about jQuery based sites still alive today. The only thing I'm missing is any indication of how big it is when minified + gzipped. EDIT: jsrender.js is 33.74 kB, jsrender.min.js a mere 12.82 kB)
- alnico 9mo agoI’ve been collaborating with Boris, the author of JsViews, and we do have plans to modernize the website—which speaks directly to your point about first impressions and adoption. You’re absolutely right that presentation matters; if something looks dated, people may disengage before digging any deeper. I also raised the jQuery dependency concern with Boris for exactly the reason you mentioned: many teams automatically rule out anything that requires jQuery, especially outside of legacy codebases. That’s a real barrier today. For what it’s worth, a jQuery-free version may happen. Boris is actively exploring it, but he’s making no promises—it’s a non-trivial problem and would effectively require a full rewrite rather than a simple refactor.
- shimman 9mo ago
- kordlessagain 9mo agoWow. Great job.
- kordlessagain 9mo agoNow what we need is realtime log forwarding from js to the llm.
- recursivedoubts 9mo agohail to the king
- fourseventy 9mo agoNow that's a name i've not heard in a long time...
- sodafountan 9mo agoWow, this is interesting to see. I thought jQuery was dead. My next question would be, is this something that OpenAI and Anthropic would train their data on? If I ask Claude Code to write an app and utilize jQuery, would it resolve to the previous version until it's retrained in a newer model?
- hu3 9mo agomost code from jQuery 2 or 3 works in 4. they have legendary backwards compatibility. most of the breaking changes are dropping support for ancient browsers. so yes, LLMs are great with jQuery.
- giancarlostoro 9mo agoMuch like I am sure anyone else who started doing web dev in the 2000s and 2010s before SPA frameworks were as prevalent I learned web development scripting with jQuery and I am happy to see its still around. Theres so many things I built on top of jQuery in those early years that likely still work. Kudos to the team.
- zghst 9mo agoI feel so old. jQuery was hate/ok early in my career, as I started on the tail end of HTML5/in the middle of ES6 with all the new stuff.
- thr0waway001 9mo agoGood ol' jQuery. Thank you for everything you've done for us.
- thrownaway561 9mo agoCongrats on shipping!!!! It's been a long time since I've written any jQuery but I remember how wonderful it was to work with in the age of browser inconstancies. Thank you EJohn and the team for continuing the project.
- t1234s 9mo agoIf you are using server side rendering is jQuery or native JS all you need or is is still worth looking into more complicated JS frontends?
- augusto-moura 9mo agohtmlx[1] is the library for ssr nowadays, and TBH, pretty good option. It removes JS completely from the equation most of the time [1]: https://htmx.org/ https://htmx.org/
- 101008 9mo agoYes, my default to go now is Django + Tailwind with HTMX and celery for background tasks. That alone took me far away.
- usere9364382 9mo agoFor the record, JQuery is NOT to blame for the so called spaghetti code. Most people seem to blame JQuery for their own short coming. Most people also do not seem to understand the genius that was contained in JQuery. See "http://eyeandtea.com/crxcmp http://eyeandtea.com/crxcmp" for an example of what could already be done with JQuery in the IE8 era. A lot of the things later invented in the browser were to mask these shortcomings instead of admitting to them. The shadow DOM is one example. JQuery already had a feature that rendered the shadow DOM unnecessary, but it would require discipline that most developers did not have nor understand. Having said that, after JQuery 1.x, and in particular, the changing, the deprecating, and the dropping of things here and there, JQuery no longer made sense. Somewhat similar to the SDL situation in the C/C++ word. An important role of JQuery, similar to SDL, was a strong code contract before anything else, and if the developer now has to account for JQuery's version differences like having to account for browser differences, what is the point.
- synergy20 9mo agosdl is still alive and kicking, doesn't seem looking ground to new replacements?
- JoeyJoJoJr 9mo agoWait, SDL is no longer relevant? What is the alternative?
- w4rh4wk5 9mo agoSDL is very relevant. Not just on PC, also on consoles as ports for all modern consoles are available to platform disclosed developers. (See READMEs in SDL repository.) Calling SDL outdated / irrelevant is definitely an overstatement despite most developers using UE or Unity nowadays.
- jxhdbdbd 9mo agoI don't understand your comparison at all, SDL is a C library not a C++ library Are you talking about STL? But even there it makes no sense
- 9mo ago
- erichanson 9mo agoI love jQuery syntax. It's still way tigheter than standards-based stuff, never understood all the crapping on it.
- masfoobar 9mo agoI remember the first time I tried jQuery -- which was 2009. Before jQuery, I had vanilla JS code that factored in Safari, Firefox, Opera... and... IE6, IE7, and then IE8 which was (from memory) recent at the time. Trying to design a visual drag n' drop editing interface on the web was a chore at the time especially with the differences in IE browsers! It was suprising how many customers were still using IE6! A lot of this is purely by memory, now. I even have shivering memories reminding myself I was using VB.NET with ASP.NET Web forms. I really HATED it! I remember ASP.NET provided dynamic web pages with things like Placeholder tag, etc. Again, It felt bloated even back then but I made it work. It was a balance of using what was recommended by other developers, and trying to ensure performance is good. By around end of 2009, I tried jQuery as an experimental branch and very impressed with its capabilities. Despite being a decent Javascript developer at the time I was inexperienced with AJAX (Technically I was a Junior dev in ways) but jQuery shows me the way. It was not long before I ditched certain features of .NET Web Forms for jQuery. At the time, there may have been a little overhead replacing various javascript code I am written with jQuery but the rewards were high. It was cleaner frontend and backend code, thanks to simple AJAX calls. Since then I've always had huge respect for jQuery! While I don't consider myself a decent javascript as I don't use it much. However, when I do come back to web development, I cannot be asked with the modern ways. To me it's bloat. I just stick with htmx, now. If I have do some fancy things visually then I will use jQuery.
- nilslindemann 9mo agoJQuery is cool because it does not try to replace the HTML. Progressive_Enhancement / Graceful Degradation is possible with jQuery, something which the new Frameworks, Svelte, React, etc., have forgotten / never learned.
- OvervCW 9mo agoVue can do progressive enhancement.
- nilslindemann 9mo agoYes, okay, some can. Vue, petite-vue, Alpine, ...
- tanseydavid 9mo ago"jQuery?!?! We use J-jQuery" -Jack Borrough (Senior Javascript Developer)
- tracker1 9mo agoI had a boss around 2008 or so... "Why are you guys talking about JavaScript? Can't you just use jQuery instead?"
- markandrewj 9mo agoI personally don't have a need for JQuery anymore, but I still have a lot of respect for John Resig.