Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
Fuck that. I ain't writing accordeons or adding effects by hand. If i can finish a task in 2 mins using jquery so fucking be it. My employers/customers don't give a rats ass about how cool my Vanilla JS is. They care about how fast I can build it.
Yes, learn Js to the point in which you can create that without it. But use the tools available to speed shit up!! -
@AleCx04 css has a transition property that can easily be toggled by js.
-
@alkuzad there's a new API in town called the fetch API, which is as simple as this:
fetch(url).then(r => r.text()).then(r => {
//And there you go
});
This is what I was talking about. A lot of jQuery methods are obsolete now because of new, native functions -
Not everyone who uses jquery is ignorant of vanilla javascript
Half my apps use pure js, no framework at all, and I am very well aware how to do everything jquery does in the awkward dom way.
It takes just three times the time to write and is less readable after an year.
So yeah, if I'm in a worry and speed is not an issue, why waste time? For looping an array of elements is someway superior to an "each()"? -
@nbamaral I mean, there *is* array.forEach(function)...
-
@myss "The only reason I see anyone using it legitemately is because of backwards compatibility." - right at the top of my rant. :facepalm:
-
You were ranting so much about it that while reading through comments I lost track of what you wrote in OP. Backwards compability is a pretty solid argument and you can't just say fuck jQuery and all of those external libs and just use most recent native functions without taking compability in consideration. Not every user in the world is keen for latest update and features right away - its simple as that, face it or enjoy losing clients + money while waiting for those browsers with native functions to kick in.
-
And about the part "When you find yourself including jQuery instinctively, you're gone." I agree with that part, but just to point of light websites that don't require more than several hundred lines of JS. Everything more and you're just reinventing the wheel. If I have 16 problems I can solve in clumsy way in vanilla JS and 5 other problems require jQuery or some other library, I would just use that same library for all of them (provided I can), to maintain code readability and keep some pattern - if I'm including it already, might as well get full use from it.
-
@myss I guess my point is that by now, you shouldn't need jQuery to solve those problems. Anyway, if you solve your js problems with js they're probably going to work faster.
-
@vityavv
I know. I use both vanilla and jquery.
The latter is more elegant and readable when I need to change something 2 years in the future.
Don't need to mix array with document and window objects.
Stackoverflow.
What only relying on JavaScript for HTML form input validation looks like
Fuck jQuery. The only reason I see anyone using it legitemately is because of backwards compatibility. Almost every jq method is either native js or native css. The problem is, some devs become practically dependent on a library. By then, they are no longer js devs. They are jQuery devs. When you find yourself going to the docs of a lib before native methods 9 times out of 10 you've gone past the turning point. When you find yourself including jQuery instinctively, you're gone. StackOverflow is a great example of this:
Question - 1 up
Pure JS answer - 0 ups
jQuery answer (same length) - 2 ups and accepted
Come on man. It's 2018! We shouldn't be writing jQuery anymore. Native methods ftw!
rant
js
jquery
stackoverflow
javascript