41
odite
132d

jQuery & Bootstrap

Not exactly fads but I'd like to take this opportunity to say fuck them.

Comments
  • 8
    But... I like Bootstrap :(
  • 7
    Resig and gang deserve mad respect for the work they did on jQuery when it was relevant. It's just not anymore.
  • 2
    @Marl3x I'd say it is useful for those who aren't front end to get something going. But other than that, nah.
  • 6
    @SortOfTested jQuery was the shit when CSS wasn't as capable.
  • 6
    @odite
    And when the Js Dom didn't implement almost all of its functionality.
  • 3
    You will not say fuck them if they offer a really big salary. The best motivation is income. You will do jQuery even if you hate IF they offer a really big salary.
  • 3
    @odite I know CSS very well but it's just so much faster to use Bootstrap.
  • 4
    bootstrap might be garbage, but jQuery, especially during the time it came out, was a fucking godsend. I still prefer it for simple things vs pulling out an entire bloated framework like Vue/React.
  • 0
    @SortOfTested I think it's still relevant for simple things where you need to build a website that works both with and without Javascript.
  • 0
    @Devnergy No shit, but for projects I have control over, they wouldn't be included.
  • 3
    @djsumdog @odite Imagine you are a big corporation, so you have a corporate design. If you use a Bootstrap theme, you have no problem, if you start from scratch, we'll good fucking luck getting through marketing.
  • 1
    @Marl3x you like the grid :)
  • 3
    @thatguyatwork flexbox for life
  • 1
    NOOO NOT jQUERY!!
  • 2
    Bootstrap will not go because it's based on gross misunderstanding on how HTML and CSS even work, and a precondition for Bootstrap to die would be frontend devs growing a second brain cell - ain't gonna happen.
  • 1
    Bootstrap still pretty dominant.
  • 2
    Fuck bootstrap? Well fuck you too!
  • 0
    jQuery, you bastard, will end someday. And that day, I will laugh silently for your unavoidable demise.

    But, you know, plain JavaScript is worse.
    I would use a framework like Angular but I really do not like full stack jobs. I prefer your frontend shit not touch my precious little machine, ok?
  • 1
    Okay I won’t touch your “precious little machine”.

    And the future of jQuery is unpredictable.

    But it *is* easier than vanilla JS, I agree.
  • 2
    JQuery and Bootstrap are the best
  • 0
    What's the replacement for Bootstrap... And well jQuery too?

    Prebuilt UI components and a flexible grid system + selecting DOM objects via a path string are what I've found were there most useful.

    Then again I haven't been on the HTML5 train but I don't think these features are included in that or native JS?
  • 0
    @billgates Vanilla, and Vanilla. Requires of course basic understanding of one's underlying technologies, which is the norm in most dev domains except frontend.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop So use doc.getElementBy? And eventually create a recursive function that takes a string and uses it to traverse the doc and select the ones you want... Sorta like regex....

    Wait that would be reimplementing what jQuery already does though...
  • 0
    I actually did that in Java because I needed to extract data it of HTML returned from requests... Or maybe it was for JSON...
  • 2
    @billgates You don't need jQuery anymore for that because vanilla JS has selectors, just with much better performance.

    On the other hand, jQuery is also obsolete because in complex projects, you don't want to do direct DOM manipulation anyway because state management becomes a difficult problem.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop True that. Isn’t it something like document.selectorQuery()?
  • 1
    @imaduck yeah if you only want the first matching element, or querySelectorAll for all elements. Besides, there is also the getElementBy family that returns a collection of possibly more than one element, except for getElementById of course.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop
    Also important as we urge people away from jQuery for them to understand how browsers are going to interpret css selectors and apply those queries to trees and indices. (Even if most of that is poorly documented, even for the non-tldr crowd)
  • 1
    @SortOfTested For a private project, I had a medium complex widget as jQuery plugin, and the very presence of jQuery just irked me. When I finally got around to that, I rewrote some parts of it, but not much - and it went from a 100kB (minified, before gzip) down to 14kB.

    On top of that, vanilla JS offers full control how to do the animations, and I went for JS triggered CSS transitions. Especially on hi-Res displays, the movement looked considerably smoother.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop
    Indeed. It was bad enough that libraries like greensock library could even be a monkey patched improvement.

    For me, jQuery falls apart at scale. It's paradigms are outnoded certainly. The big one is it doesn't provide any ability to cooordinate anything in its plugin or data infrastructure. People then abuse them, use hundreds of them in a loop (or in some cases I've seen, 22,000) and then are baffled when they obliterates the rendering pipeline to the tune of 4s updates since updates are entropic and disconnected.

    It's impossible to not misuse in 2020. Time for beer.
  • 1
    @SortOfTested To be fair, jQuery was never designed to handle super huge and complex applications that need state management, especially if state may change both because of user actions and remote data changes. Vanilla JS would have the same issue.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop And I doubt jQuery UI is much better. All it adds is just fancy form stuff, icons, effects, and a ThemeRoller.
  • 0
    @imaduck jQuery UI has been dead for years. Just look at their website - they're still using jQuery 1.11.3 which was released in 2015, I think that says it all.
  • 0
    @Fast-Nop And now we have jQuery 3.4.1.

    GET IT TOGETHER jQUERY UI
Add Comment