Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

While I think that’s the right choice, I’d just like to point out that the problem with jQuery today is it was a library built to smooth over and fix differences between browser JavaScript engines (IE, well, IE).

Over the past 15 years or so browser JavaScript engines, except at the extreme edges, are roughly comparable. Further, a lot of the features of jQuery have been adopted into standard JavaScript.

So, the reason of eschewing jQuery, even for small pages, is simply that you don’t need it. Vanilla JS (or typescript) + modern CSS have pretty much all the same capabilities without any of the bloat. Using it today would be a little like using a library made to back port java 8 features onto a java 5 JVM.



> smooth over and fix differences between browser JavaScript engines

And let us avoid some of the extremely verbose and un-ergonomic standard APIs.


Mootools, Prototype, all offered cross browser compatibility.

The reason we're not discussing them today is that jQuery has a stupendous API that simply hasn't been matched yet.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: