[monoideism]

1) It's jQuery, not "JQuerry". I've been using it since 2008, and Prototype.js and script.aculo.us before that.

2) For quick prototypes, I can't imagine why you'd need to accommodate pre-HTML5 HTML. We're discussing quick prototypes, not production sites targeting browsers going back a decade.

3) VanillaJS equivalents are slightly longer than jQuery snippets, mostly because the API names are a bit longer:

css:

    // jQuery
    newDiv.addClass('foo');

    // Vanilla
    newDiv.classList.add('foo');

siblings:

    // jQuery
    const nextElement = $('#wrap').next();

    // Vanilla
    const nextElement = document.querySelector('wrap').nextSibling;

etc etc.

If the extra verbosity bothers you, you can always alias `document.querySelector` as `$`, or `sel`, or whatever. Then you get stuff like:

    // jQuery
    const nextElement = $('#wrap').next();

    // Vanilla
    const nextElement = sel('wrap').nextSibling;

And yes, the jQuery method names are a little shorter, but for quick prototyping, I'd rather use something that I know can be run on any modern browser, with no build step or library required. For production apps, I'll 99% of the time use a framework, either React or Vue.js.

I get that not everyone prefers that. That's OK.

[simion314]

You chose the functions that are the simplest , maybe this are the ones you use but there are many more, like do this in JS. i gave other examples like .is("Lvisible") .parenents , wrap, unwrap, and the one I use a lot .css() .after(), .append() etc . and what makes the API neat is you can chain methods where DOM APIs return special collection that you have to use with for(i = 0; ....

JQuerry might not be the tool for your job but this not makes the fact it's API is nicer, powerful then pure JS . check the anti-jQuerry page http://youmightnotneedjquery.com and you will see that in the end you have to reinvent yor own jQuerry

[monoideism]

> JQuerry might not be the tool for your job

Again, jQuery. I'm a little skeptical that you use either very often if you don't even know how to spell it. `jQuery` is literally the global namespace for jQuery (often aliased to `$`).

> and the one I use a lot .css() .after(), .append() etc

after:

    // jQuery
    (target).after(element);
    // Vanilla JS
    target.insertAdjacentElement('afterend', element);

append:

    // jQuery
    $(parent).append(el);
    
    // Vanilla JS
    parent.appendChild(el);

css:

    // jQuery
    $(el).css('color', 'black');

    // Vanilla JS
    el.style.color = 'black';

That jQuery equivalent page is like 5+ years old. Now, there are easier APIs for the few lengthy vanilla JS that remain on that page.

[simion314]

>el.style.color

is not equivalent with .css()

About my typo , I am not a native english speacker and words like query , queue , still, until are hard for me to remember when to double some letter, spell checker will help but jQuery is not in the dictionary and when I code I use $ and never the full name.

In my use case jQuery is the best tool and I am not sure why you need to contradict someone with daily experience , is so hard to admit that the API is nicer, that it fixes browser differences ? Do you lose some points or pride or other ego related stuff? Do you think you win some credit when you find a typo and use that to attack me? Can you explain what is happening in your mind when you type this ?

Go on that page and look at /is() pr /widthy() and not cherry pick stuff or incomplete implementation like you did for .css()

[monoideism]

> >el.style.color is not equivalent with .css()

How is it not equivalent? Please be specific.

> In my use case jQuery is the best tool and I am not sure why you need to contradict someone with daily experience

Dude, you're the the one who challenged me, and suggested I was lying or uninformed. jQuery is fine to use, I totally understand someone who wants to leverage their background in it. By the way, I also have daily experience, used jQuery for 10 years, am a senior frontend dev.

But it's misleading to new developers to claim that modern JS doesn't have the same capacities. Making this claim spreads misinformation.

> is so hard to admit that the API is nicer,

Disagree. It's more or less the same. I get you're used to one, but there's not a huge difference between the two.

> that it fixes browser differences ?

Yes, it fixes old browser differences, and I made that point repeatedly elsewhere in the thread. For production apps (apps, not sites), if someone is stupid enough to avoid using a framework like Vue.js or React, and you're targeting browsers going back a decade in time, then it's wise to use jQuery. jQuery is also good for progressive enhancement on brochureware sites if you have to support very old browsers (for those kinds of static sites, no need for a JS framework).

But none of that applies to the discussion we were having. The discussion was about quick prototyping.

> Do you lose some points or pride or other ego related stuff? Do you think you win some credit when you find a typo and use that to attack me? Can you explain what is happening in your mind when you type this ?

Sure. Mostly, I'm annoyed at being corrected about jQuery by someone who can't even bother to spell "jQuery" correctly. I speak several languages, and make an effort to use them correctly. Also, language mastery is irrelevant: it's frankly surprising to meet a developer who has such trouble with basic syntax issues.

All the criticisms you threw up in that last paragraph, also apply to you. Do you even realize that? You're the one challenging my perspective. I'm defending it.

Also, in terms of cherrypicking, I'm using the example you chose. So if anyone is cherrypicking here, it's you.

[simion314]

OK, I will try to calm our discussion down.

The .css() function can be used as a getter or setter , so if you do something like

el.css('font-size') it will not only do the inline style check as your example, if that is missing it can get the computed css style. Also if you check the MDN page https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLElement... you will see that IE is mentioned because it is a bit different in behavior.

So here is what I see as facts, let me know what fact is wrong and why

- pure JS most of the time you need more lines of code to do the same thing, more lines makes the code less readable

- pure JS does not chain nicely as jQuery, the code is such less elegant and harder to read

- to solve the above you probably consider writing your own mini jQuery, your version will probably be smaller but it will probably miss corner cases and your code will be harder to read for other developers.

You are probably imagine I am wrinting some horible jQuery code to create complex web pages, I am not using it like that(I think React is something that would fit complex GUIs and server side templates in any language for simple stuff ). The problem I am solving is this: the input is any html from the web, fill with garbage and broken tags, I need to do something like "Reader mode" to clean it up (I use the Moziila library for this) but add some more cleanup on top, then I need to transform it in a more strict version of html because my output needs to pass some validator, so I need to find and remove illegal elements/attributes duplicated IDs, fix different garbage ... ideally all the garbage is removed and you get pure text and images, only P,span and img tags (it is more complicated). I also want to present the result on screen and let the user customize some styling.

For new simple project pure JS is enough, for more complex SPA you probably want a framework, there might be some cases where jQuery can work fine, maybe server side rendering where you need a bit of JS for small interactivity (not on SPA) also there are still some good jQuerry UI widgets around,

Can you tell me where is the anti-jQuery sentiment is coming from and if you feel the same for lodash or similar helper libraries?

Sorry for my language I am not as good as others with some of english weird syntax and is harder to write my thoughts