4 ms·

> it's fairly lightweight Really? 93kb of code is lightweight? Yeah I know it gzips smaller, but that's still not what I'd call "ligthweight". It's not bloated

by _getify 13y ago

> it's fairly lightweight Really? 93kb of code is lightweight? Yeah I know it gzips smaller, but that's still not what I'd call "ligthweight". It's not bloated, but it's certainly not a micro-lib. > you might on the next I think this might miss the point. If you're just writing code on sites, sure, consider jQuery. But if you're creating a library or framework that thousands of others may use, your decision to pick jQuery is making that choice for THEM, which means you should think about it a lot more closely. It's not then about whether you might like it "next time", but whether the people using your lib/framework will likely need jQuery. That decision should not be made glibly or lightly. Especially if you're only using a small portion of that 93kb of jQuery, and could just "do it yourself".

camus2 13y ago
> Really? 93kb of code is lightweight? Yeah I know it gzips smaller, but that's still not what I'd call "ligthweight". It's not bloated, but it's certainly not a micro-lib. use a cdn, anyway most browsers support gzipped requests. > Especially if you're only using a small portion of that 93kb of jQuery, and could just "do it yourself". "do it yourself" if you can be sure it will work on as many browsers as jquery. Do you think most people have the capability to test their DOM related code on as much browsers ? or are you telling people to ship broken code ? jQuery is one of the only library that is tested on a wide range of devices. But you dont care ,you are not responsible for people's failure to deliver code that works everywhere. And it's not just a IE8 issue. Some mobile browsers have serious DOM issues that will never be fixed ( Android 2.3, safari ), and these cases are handled by jquery. Can you fix people's "diy" code? no, so dont give developpers bad advices. My advice is, if you dont have the capability to test on a wide range of devices , dont "DIY" , your code will be break for sure.

by _getify 13y ago

camus2 13y ago

> Really? 93kb of code is lightweight? Yeah I know it gzips smaller, but that's still not what I'd call "ligthweight". It's not bloated, but it's certainly not a micro-lib. use a cdn, anyway most browsers support gzipped requests. > Especially if you're only using a small portion of that 93kb of jQuery, and could just "do it yourself". "do it yourself" if you can be sure it will work on as many browsers as jquery. Do you think most people have the capability to test their DOM related code on as much browsers ? or are you telling people to ship broken code ? jQuery is one of the only library that is tested on a wide range of devices. But you dont care ,you are not responsible for people's failure to deliver code that works everywhere. And it's not just a IE8 issue. Some mobile browsers have serious DOM issues that will never be fixed ( Android 2.3, safari ), and these cases are handled by jquery. Can you fix people's "diy" code? no, so dont give developpers bad advices. My advice is, if you dont have the capability to test on a wide range of devices , dont "DIY" , your code will be break for sure.