[DangerousPie]

I bought into this a few years ago and ended up regretting it. My code has become much harder to maintain and read due to all the extra boilerplate code, and it probably has hidden bugs and compatibility issues that I'm not even aware of. And for some things I still ended up requiring jQuery, because they just weren't feasible to do in vanilla JS.

I have actually gone back to making heavier use of jQuery again these days.

[kebman]

I guess the irony is that jQuery is indeed written in JavaScript, so whatever you set out to do is still "feasible to do in vanilla JS." With that said the main difference is of course that there's far more people involved in maintaining jQuery than there is on most people's individual codebases. Personally I try to make do without it, if nothing else than because it forces me to learn JavaScript better.

[DangerousPie]

Of course - what I was trying to say there was that it was not feasible without writing hundreds of lines of extra code, with all the development and maintenance cost that brings. In some use cases that trade-off may make sense, but in mine it doesn't.