4 ms·

You know what I love about jQuery ? It's readable. Every time I have to look at plain ol' javascript it feels like my eyes are going to bleed. Regardless of wh

• beatgammit 14y ago
  I don't think so, for example: var list = querySelectorAll(selector); var i; for (i = 0; i < list.length; i++) list[i].value = value; Is just as readable as: $(selector).val(value); Except that the jQuery example requires you to be familiar with jQuery. The first, however, just requires you to be familiar with a for loop, which is a common construct in many languages. Being faster is just a happy by-product. I, personally, am starting to use Dart instead, because it is a nice middleground between jQuery and raw DOM manipulation; it doesn't hide the details like jQuery does and it's still fast. Ihe best argument I can see is with XMLHttpRequest, which is still a pain because it doesn't have a nice API.
  • jarcoal 14y ago
    Chain a few more commands onto that example and then we can talk about how readable the pure JS version is.
    • beatgammit 14y ago
      I've never liked chaining, and I hardly ever find a time when it's needed now: * animations: CSS3 * templating: I don't do it, I prefer static pages and toggle sections with classes * element filtering: better selectors (nth-child, nth-of-type, [data-stuff=''], etc) * form serialization: either use event handlers and build it as you go or just use regular browser form handling Currently, I use reqwest [1] for my HTTP requests. It's very small and is cross browser. In Dart, I just use the built-in libraries. [1] - https://github.com/ded/reqwest https://github.com/ded/reqwest
  • omarrr 14y ago
    I'm sorry but four lines of code will never be "just as readable as" one.
    • kenko 14y ago
      Frequently four lines are more readable than one.
  • TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    It's even better with modern JS: document.querySelectorAll(selector).forEach(function (elem) { value = somevalue; }); Which is more obvious in intent and more flexible. Except this doesn't work, because that's not a real array, it's a stupid NodeList. :( So you'd have to do: Array.prototype.slice.call(document.querySelectorAll('thing'), 0).forEach(function (elem) { value = somevalue; }); ugh.
    • Offler 14y ago
      Everyone should be shimming ES5 array methods so your good example could quite happily run on older browsers too.
    • gildas 14y ago
      You don't need to call the slice method: Array.prototype.forEach.call(document.querySelectorAll('thing'), function (elem) { value = somevalue; });
      • TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
        And I could use underscore, a much more general-purpose library than jQuery to help me here, only 4kb. So: _.each(document.querySelectorAll('thing'), function (elem) { value = somevalue; }); (But then I might as well just use jQuery, I guess)
  • spankalee 14y ago
    Just because you mention Dart here, I want to point out what this would look like in Dart right now: queryAll(selector).forEach((e) => e.value = value); To me this is quite readable, and it's really nothing special about Dart, it's just that the dart:html library uses real Dart collections rather than the very unfortunate DOM NodeList. To go even further into jQuery territory, there are bugs requesting that queryAll() return an ElementList that has setters that effect every element in the list, so we could do this: queryAll(selector).value = value; I'm on the fence about that. It's short, but a little magical. I'm sure jQuery fans would like to have it though.
• gildas 14y ago
  > You know what I love about jQuery ? It's readable. Can you tell me what does this line of code without checking what the f value is? $(f);
  • Gigablah 14y ago
    Here's my answer: I.C.S.W.I.E.T.