5 ms·

http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/ http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/ -- I'll just leave this here.

• grahamel 12y ago
  also http://youmightnotnotneedjquery.com/ http://youmightnotnotneedjquery.com/
• corobo 12y ago
  That site was not convincing. Why do in 8+ lines what I can do in 1 with jQuery? Especially when the 8-line version might need testing in every possible browser out there for quirks and bugs. jQuery's already done the legwork there Edit: youmightnotnotneedjquery.com linked in a sibling of this comment explains it better in this googledoc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LPaPA30bLUB_publLIMF0RlhdnPx_ePXm7oW02iiT6o/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LPaPA30bLUB_publLIMF0Rlh...
  • salibhai 12y ago
    When performance matters, or you are doing things on an order of magnitude, you may want to skip jquery
    • corobo 12y ago
      Do you have any examples or writeups to hand where rewriting jQuery functions ended up in a faster site? Specifically in cases where other optimizations (caching, beefier servers, faster SQL, SSDs vs HDDs, etc) didn't help more?
      • Aldo_MX 12y ago
        So if I buy a beefier server, my users with a netbook (ca. 2007) will feel a responsive[1] website? [1] Responsive as in "Mozilla Firefox is not responding", not as in "Responsive Design".
        • corobo 12y ago
          Good point, not well made. Thanks for the response.
      • vorotato 12y ago
        Beefing up the server cannot improve client side code. Jquery is quite slow, nice, but quite slow. Sometimes writing out those 8 lines can make your code literally 400 times faster.(source : http://vanilla-js.com/ http://vanilla-js.com/) So yes if performance is a concern, you might want to look at writing it yourself.
        • corobo 12y ago
          Very good point, I'd not really considered the lower end spec'd machines, was more thinking overall page load times and the likes. Thanks :)
  • MatthewWilkes 12y ago
    If anything, the examples it gives are persuasive arguments for jQuery.