Generally if you can do it in jQuery you can do it without any libraries these days. JQuery was great when it pulled the industry forward but vanilla caught up making jQuery slow in comparison. I would never say don't use jQuery you can use React but I would say use vanilla js.
I agree. And it would be nice to lose JQuery. But for better or for worse, its syntax for finding elements remains terser and nicer that vanilla, and well, its embedded in a lot of contexts. That is, migrating away from it involves refactoring and to be honest is generally on the todo list for the very reason you say, that vanilla JS can do most all of what it offered anyhow. But some of that refactoring requires research and reading too as JQuery did do a few things a little differently to the way ES6 for example panned out.
Yeah, I agree. While it is fewer lines of JS written by the developer, there's actually a whole lot more being pulled in by the users browser. This has several side effects:
Their browser is downloading more data, often considerable more for the average website and use-case (e.g. where it's only used as a DOM selector). This is very noticeable for those on slower or metered connections, which a large portion of the world is on (including many parts of the USA).
The browser ends up doing more work to parse that Javascript, which is a blocking call if not set up correctly. This can have a negative impact on the time to first paint depending on what's being done.
Because the browser is doing more work parsing and executing the library, it actually uses more battery on devices that have one. This is most noticeable on older devices. There was an interesting study done by Stanford University of which this was a part (mobisocial.stanford.edu/papers/bon... ) which saw a 60% increase in battery consumption on some sites using Jquery.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Generally if you can do it in jQuery you can do it without any libraries these days. JQuery was great when it pulled the industry forward but vanilla caught up making jQuery slow in comparison. I would never say don't use jQuery you can use React but I would say use vanilla js.
But that's just me
I agree. And it would be nice to lose JQuery. But for better or for worse, its syntax for finding elements remains terser and nicer that vanilla, and well, its embedded in a lot of contexts. That is, migrating away from it involves refactoring and to be honest is generally on the todo list for the very reason you say, that vanilla JS can do most all of what it offered anyhow. But some of that refactoring requires research and reading too as JQuery did do a few things a little differently to the way ES6 for example panned out.
Aren't
$(selector)anddocument.querySelector(selector)pretty much equivalent?Yes, albeit a tad more verbose. ;-)
@link2twenty not exactly. Some of the selectors that jQuery support are not standard CSS3 selectors (api.jquery.com/has-selector/ for example).
querySelector() only finds the first result.
querySelectorAll() finds all results as an array which does not support chaining. Requiring you to introduce nested loops in many cases.
$(selector) finds all results and supports chaining. Which means you can often compress 5-20 lines of vanilla JS, into one line with jQuery.
Though not really because it's calling a whole bunch of other functions just the Dev doesn't see it but the end user feels it.
Readibility and Performance are tradeoffs. And generally readability is actually more important.
That being said, most of the time the performance differences are under 16ms making them invisible to the user.
Yeah, I agree. While it is fewer lines of JS written by the developer, there's actually a whole lot more being pulled in by the users browser. This has several side effects: