Hacker News Reader

Comment by capableweb | Hacker News Reader

There are only a few cases where that's true today. Probably 90% of the functions that helped a lot before have been implemented by browsers natively today.

View on HN

So? The jQuery code still works regardless of when the browser decided to catch up.

I picked up jQuery because JS in browsers weren't cross-compatible for ages. I don't see a need to stop unless jQuery stops being cross-compatible.

> So? The jQuery code still works regardless of when the browser decided to catch up.

So, it's not needed anymore. I also started using jQuery in order to get cross-browser support for handy stuff, but since that stuff is now cross-browser without using any 3rd party libraries at all, there is no need to use extra bandwidth and CPU cycles from your users to download something that basically already exists.

Most of the world's bandwidth is being used to stream Netflix and Youtube. I think the web will be OK if my site sends a network request for an 87KB script every now and then.

I never undertood the fuss with bandwidth and jquery either... it's only 30k once behind mod_deflate. To put it in perspective, vue.global.js is 463k or 104k once gzipped.

There are many reason not to use Jquery for greenfield projects now, but bandwith is not one of them.

The "fuss" is not about the specific numbers of bandwidth but more the mindset of not using more resources than absolutely necessary. And yeah, my breed who seems to care about this seems to be scarcer and scarcer out there but I promise, we still do exists.

Funny how some people have this mindset only about jquery and not unecessary fonts, icons, image backgrounds, etc.

When have I argued that? Or are you putting other people's opinion and saying I hold them?

Where did I say it was you ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com