5 ms·

Honestly, if I were still a web developer, I would still use a library. The libraries greatly simplify things for the standard use cases. If I could not use a

Honestly, if I were still a web developer, I would still use a library. The libraries greatly simplify things for the standard use cases. If I could not use a library, I would look for the unminified code of a library and copy and paste it the relevant section. Because ultimately, unless things go wrong and I need to dig deep, I have better things to do than mastering yet another complex web api.

Someone1234 12y ago
Nothing you said is incorrect, nor do I behave differently (who doesn't utilise JQuery?). That being said; it seems like a copout to ignore glaring issues while waving our collective hands in the air and saying "just use a library to abstract it!" One of the reasons libraries are as popular as they are (particularly JQuery which does "nothing" except provide an abstraction) is because the standards are so weak and cross browser support so incomplete. A lot of people think we're currently in a great place in terms of web-development. I actually disagree. We're still in a bad place, it just so happens that were were in an even worse place previously (e.g. IE6 era). Is there any real motive in the standardisation community or web community in general to make the spec' good enough so JQuery is no longer required by 9/10 websites? Why isn't $('#something').click(); built in yet?
- untog 12y ago
  document.getElementById('something').addEventListener('click',function() {}) works on all browsers these days. But we're stuck in our habits. I don't deny that web development is kind of crappy, but it's just in the nature of it - the reason why iOS and Android are easier to develop for is because there's really only one client for them. Personally, I'll take the multiple, open client approach over the closed one any day, warts and all.
  - bshimmin 12y ago
    One key difference is the jQuery version will gracefully do nothing if "#something" doesn't exist, while yours will throw "TypeError: Cannot read property 'addEventListener' of null".
    - NhanH 12y ago
      Additionally, that's actually not equivalent to Jquery .on(), which is the recommended way to add event nowadays.
    - smellf 12y ago
      You say jQuery "gracefully does nothing", I say the code fails silently and the application breaks anyway with no real indication of where the problem lies.
- wbkang 12y ago
  The first half is possible now with document.querySelector[All]("#something")
  - panzi 12y ago
    It's possible with document.getElementById("something") even for very old browsers.

Someone1234 12y ago

Nothing you said is incorrect, nor do I behave differently (who doesn't utilise JQuery?). That being said; it seems like a copout to ignore glaring issues while waving our collective hands in the air and saying "just use a library to abstract it!" One of the reasons libraries are as popular as they are (particularly JQuery which does "nothing" except provide an abstraction) is because the standards are so weak and cross browser support so incomplete. A lot of people think we're currently in a great place in terms of web-development. I actually disagree. We're still in a bad place, it just so happens that were were in an even worse place previously (e.g. IE6 era). Is there any real motive in the standardisation community or web community in general to make the spec' good enough so JQuery is no longer required by 9/10 websites? Why isn't $('#something').click(); built in yet?

untog 12y ago
document.getElementById('something').addEventListener('click',function() {}) works on all browsers these days. But we're stuck in our habits. I don't deny that web development is kind of crappy, but it's just in the nature of it - the reason why iOS and Android are easier to develop for is because there's really only one client for them. Personally, I'll take the multiple, open client approach over the closed one any day, warts and all.
- bshimmin 12y ago
  One key difference is the jQuery version will gracefully do nothing if "#something" doesn't exist, while yours will throw "TypeError: Cannot read property 'addEventListener' of null".
  - NhanH 12y ago
    Additionally, that's actually not equivalent to Jquery .on(), which is the recommended way to add event nowadays.
  - smellf 12y ago
    You say jQuery "gracefully does nothing", I say the code fails silently and the application breaks anyway with no real indication of where the problem lies.
wbkang 12y ago
The first half is possible now with document.querySelector[All]("#something")
- panzi 12y ago
  It's possible with document.getElementById("something") even for very old browsers.