On: You might not need jQuery (2014)

[peanut_worm]

This is all very old javascript to be fair, the modern equivalents are as terse as jquery these days.

[jamiesonbecker → peanut_worm]

Somewhat true, but this was also old jQuery :)

Even the old jQuery seems easier to read than the modern ES6 equivalent (IMO).

jQuery:

    $(".classname").addClass("darktheme")

ES6:

    document.querySelector(".classname").classList.add("darktheme")

[ryanbrunner → jamiesonbecker]

Maybe a nit, but these aren't equivalent. The jQuery version will apply it to all elements that match your selector, where the ES6 version will only apply to the first matching element.

Equivalent code in ES6 would be (maybe there's a terser way but this is what I'd do at first glance):

    [...document.querySelectorAll('.className')].forEach(el => el.classList.add('darktheme'));

Not a whole lot extra in terms of actual code, but I'd argue it's not super intuitive (having to cast a NodeList to an array is a pretty big beginner footgun), and as you get into more complex scenarios, the jQuery architectural pattern of operating against collections of nodes really shines.

[ratww → ryanbrunner]

You can use forEach without the splat:

    document.querySelectorAll(".className").forEach(el => el.classList.add('newClass'));

[jamiesonbecker → ratww]

Still doesn't seem like much of a win compared to the jQuery :)

    $(".classname").addClass("darktheme")

[peanut_worm → ryanbrunner]

NodeLists should have a forEach method as far as I know

[arp242 → jamiesonbecker]

There are quite a few more examples of this:

    $('.class').remove()
    $('.class').after(...)

vs:

    var e = document.querySelector('.class')
    e.parentNode.removeChild(e)

    document.querySelector('.class').insertAdjacentElement('afterend', ...)

[realityking → arp242]

This is good example of how browser APIs have gotten better:

// Edge 12 document.querySelector('.class').remove();

// Edge 17 document.querySelector('.class').after(...);

Where jQuery shines - but also hides a lot of complexity- is when operating on an array of elements, e.g. if you want to remove all elements with a certain class.

[jamiesonbecker → arp242]

This kind of code grows explosively in a moderately-sized project, and the sheer volume and verbosity makes it hard to debug. Not to mention requiring more tylenol ;)

[jarek-foksa → arp242]

The modern DOM equivalent would look almost the same as the jQuery version:

  document.querySelector(".class").remove();
  document.querySelector(".class").after(...);

[mejutoco → jamiesonbecker]

Agree. Even before getting into things like: $(".classname").closest(".container").addClass("active”);

I do not get the hate over jquery, specially since frameworks like angular used (use?) to include a light version of it (sizzle or similar?) and methods like $httpParamSerializerJQLike, which does not scream of elegance.

I still remember when prototype.js was the default in rails, and jquery was so less overengineered and it just worked. It felt like magic.

[6510 → mejutoco]

The opinions mostly depend on what people know. The dvorak keyboard might be better?

[asiando → jamiesonbecker]

Yes but the former will silently fail on you. Good luck finding that!

[mejutoco → asiando]

This is probably a feature. The non-jquery version will need a check for the elements existance to not blow up, which could the same be added to the jquery version for error reporting.

Plus, in this case, you will find out by seeing the dark theme is not active :p