3 ms·
The subtitle of the article is "Because you want the $ of jQuery without the jQuery". With such an ambiguous statement, I think we can afford ceronman the benef
by WorldWideWayne 11y ago
The subtitle of the article is "Because you want the $ of jQuery without the jQuery". With such an ambiguous statement, I think we can afford ceronman the benefit of the doubt.
Furthermore, I don't think he's making up a strawman at all now matter how you look at it. He agreed with the article. You CAN re-implement jQuery in 10 lines of code if all you want is 0.1% the functionality of jQuery. That's what the article said and it is true. It's not an argument against any perceived strawman.
The next paragraph was praise for jQuery and the final paragraph said it's fine to not use jQuery and added an opinion about what "these kinds of posts seem like". Where's the strawman?
- baddox 11y ago> The subtitle of the article is "Because you want the $ of jQuery without the jQuery". With such an ambiguous statement, I think we can afford ceronman the benefit of the doubt. Headlines are supposed to be ambiguous, in the sense that they are much shorter than the content they accompany (and thus there are fewer possible headlines than there are possible articles). You're expected to read the content.