5 ms·

Doesn't work in IE and doesn't support cross-domain requests. Oh, and yes, I'm sure every user knows to check their javascript console when an app does nothing.

k3n 13y ago
I wonder if that code block does anything at all. var http = new XMLHttpRequest(); if (http != undefined) { ... } In what runtime would calling this constructor return undefined (or null, or false...), and yet not throw an error?
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  You're right, that code will blow up if the browser doesn't support XMLHttpRequest. The version below is more common: var ajaxObject; if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { ... } else if (window.ActiveXObject) { ... } if (ajaxObject) { ... } else { //handle users without ajax } and that's just to create the object! compare to: $.ajax();
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    and that's just to create the object! compare to: $.ajax(); So you're comparing the body of one function to the signature of another? I know I posted some really shitty code, but you managed to shoot yourself in the foot even in that scenario, grats. https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/ajax.js https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/ajax.js Here, now it's apples to apples.
    - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
      you realize i'm talking about code I have to write, right? If anything, you've further proven my point, considering that the jQuery implementation also covers other common use cases like failure, cross-browser requests, etc., i.e. hours upon hours of googling and/or just copy-pasting the jQuery source into my app, which adds loading time to my site instead of just using a cached version of jQuery that almost everyone already has in the cache in the first place.
    - k3n 13y ago
      When I look at that, I see man-years of work that I don't have to reinvent.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
I already said it works perfectly for me - I don't care about IE (the feeling is mutual I think) and I don't request from other domains. The error message is useless/dumb, sure, but then again I didn't say you should use this, I said I use this. I'll improve it when I have actual need to do so, how's that for an idea.

k3n 13y ago

I wonder if that code block does anything at all. var http = new XMLHttpRequest(); if (http != undefined) { ... } In what runtime would calling this constructor return undefined (or null, or false...), and yet not throw an error?

rmrfrmrf 13y ago
You're right, that code will blow up if the browser doesn't support XMLHttpRequest. The version below is more common: var ajaxObject; if (window.XMLHttpRequest) { ... } else if (window.ActiveXObject) { ... } if (ajaxObject) { ... } else { //handle users without ajax } and that's just to create the object! compare to: $.ajax();
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  and that's just to create the object! compare to: $.ajax(); So you're comparing the body of one function to the signature of another? I know I posted some really shitty code, but you managed to shoot yourself in the foot even in that scenario, grats. https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/ajax.js https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/ajax.js Here, now it's apples to apples.
  - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
    you realize i'm talking about code I have to write, right? If anything, you've further proven my point, considering that the jQuery implementation also covers other common use cases like failure, cross-browser requests, etc., i.e. hours upon hours of googling and/or just copy-pasting the jQuery source into my app, which adds loading time to my site instead of just using a cached version of jQuery that almost everyone already has in the cache in the first place.
  - k3n 13y ago
    When I look at that, I see man-years of work that I don't have to reinvent.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

I already said it works perfectly for me - I don't care about IE (the feeling is mutual I think) and I don't request from other domains. The error message is useless/dumb, sure, but then again I didn't say you should use this, I said I use this. I'll improve it when I have actual need to do so, how's that for an idea.