4 ms·
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.XMLHtt
by 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 agoand 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 agoyou 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 agoWhen I look at that, I see man-years of work that I don't have to reinvent.