4 ms·

> The problem with jQuery is that it's an all-or-nothing approach. The way it wraps native DOM nodes means it keeps trying to pull you back to using its inbuilt

> The problem with jQuery is that it's an all-or-nothing approach. The way it wraps native DOM nodes means it keeps trying to pull you back to using its inbuilt utility methods. Not true at all. You can do a custom build and leave out things you don't need. You can even leave out stuff you DO need and replace with your own simpler shim. See the README file.

underwater 13y ago
Sure, it's technically possible. But not common from the projects I've seen. The APIs seem to be designed with the assumption that all your code will be using jQuery. For example converting a wrapped node to a native DOM node requires an extra call that, in my opinion, is ugly: $('.something').get(0); and could be considered to be an anti-pattern. I don't think this is a bad thing. jQuery does a good job at providing a DSL that replaces native DOM access. But if you want a library instead of a framework its strongly opinionated style can be off-putting.
- dmethvin 13y ago
  > The APIs seem to be designed with the assumption that all your code will be using jQuery. Again, not true. For example, the `this` in an event handler is the actual DOM element, not a jQuery object. Whether you handle that directly with DOM methods or wrap it with `$(this)` is up to you. Many people prefer the latter but the former is often smaller and prettier. > For example converting a wrapped node to a native DOM node requires an extra call that, in my opinion, is ugly: $('.something').get(0); and could be considered to be an anti-pattern. How common is that, really? Your example assumes a single element with that class name. Why not chain a jQuery method behind it and handle the 0 or N cases as well?
  - talmand 13y ago
    Or even better, if you're only selecting one DOM element that doesn't need the jQuery wrapper, then don't use jQuery for that one case. There's nothing that prevents doing that even if jQuery is being used for other elements in the project. Just because jQuery is loaded doesn't mean you have to use it for everything on the page.

underwater 13y ago

Sure, it's technically possible. But not common from the projects I've seen. The APIs seem to be designed with the assumption that all your code will be using jQuery. For example converting a wrapped node to a native DOM node requires an extra call that, in my opinion, is ugly: $('.something').get(0); and could be considered to be an anti-pattern. I don't think this is a bad thing. jQuery does a good job at providing a DSL that replaces native DOM access. But if you want a library instead of a framework its strongly opinionated style can be off-putting.

dmethvin 13y ago
> The APIs seem to be designed with the assumption that all your code will be using jQuery. Again, not true. For example, the `this` in an event handler is the actual DOM element, not a jQuery object. Whether you handle that directly with DOM methods or wrap it with `$(this)` is up to you. Many people prefer the latter but the former is often smaller and prettier. > For example converting a wrapped node to a native DOM node requires an extra call that, in my opinion, is ugly: $('.something').get(0); and could be considered to be an anti-pattern. How common is that, really? Your example assumes a single element with that class name. Why not chain a jQuery method behind it and handle the 0 or N cases as well?
- talmand 13y ago
  Or even better, if you're only selecting one DOM element that doesn't need the jQuery wrapper, then don't use jQuery for that one case. There's nothing that prevents doing that even if jQuery is being used for other elements in the project. Just because jQuery is loaded doesn't mean you have to use it for everything on the page.