3 ms·
It's not lightweight - the full library is just over 80 KB for 2.x. If you have devs good enough to handle it, it should be avoided as much as possible because
by Bahamut 13y ago
It's not lightweight - the full library is just over 80 KB for 2.x. If you have devs good enough to handle it, it should be avoided as much as possible because jquery is often significantly inefficient.
Not to say there aren't instances where jQuery is fine to use. I use it for some apps as well. I don't feel the need to lie on jQuery as a crux for every problem though, especially having a decent understanding of cross-browser issues.
I think this is something worth considering by people.
- ljharb 13y ago"The solution to worrying about JS lib/framework size: include one less .jpg on your site." - https://twitter.com/paul_irish/status/227203681462927361 https://twitter.com/paul_irish/status/227203681462927361 also, https://twitter.com/trek/status/227082154109186049 https://twitter.com/trek/status/227082154109186049 and http://fourkitchens.com/blog/2013/04/24/one-less-jpg/ http://fourkitchens.com/blog/2013/04/24/one-less-jpg/
- codystebbins 13y agoDoesn't that ignore the increased parsing time of the larger JavaScript library compared to image rendering and the fact that loading & parsing JavaScript blocks page rendering? Seems like the arguments linked only focus on the network.