[reggieband]

This is a fair criticism of how I chose to tell the story. The line you quoted was supposed to refer to the character introduced in the second paragraph and not to a generic stereotype of aged man.

I can see how my choice of wording created an implication that people who have grey beards are old and that it is this oldness that contributes to their unwillingness to learn. The familiar cliche of "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".

What I actually hope to communicate is that there is a hubris which leads some to believe their skills do not require updating. The caution is that sooner or later this hubris may lead to sudden downfall. People may call on you in their time of need and you will fail. And this failure is not because of your age, your intelligence or your willingness to work hard. You will fail because you became overly comfortable with a passed status quo and you let your skills get out of date.

I see a trend of well-written, evidence backed articles where large, well funded sites are making a case to deprecate jQuery. These fact-based investigations into problems faced by their dev team result in a reasoned decision to remove a dependency that no longer justifies its cost. I encourage everyone to introspect if their defense of jQuery is on an equal technical footing to these types of investigations.

[lhorie]

IMHO this analogy doesn't really click, on multiple levels. Any old timer who uses jQuery surely is also aware of querySelectorAll and friends. There's even an entire website dedicated to catering to exactly that transition[0]. I don't think anyone defending jQuery is doing so out of a sense of hubris towards outdated knowledge, but rather because it ironically is more lightweight than a lot of the modern SPA craze, while still being more ergonomic than vanilla JS.

To try to shoehorn this back into the compiler analogy, modern frameworks would be like the advanced, complex and opaque compiler, and the grey beard is the guy that understands how stuff like HTML streaming and font download prioritization and hidden classes affect performance, whereas the team lead is analogous to the run-of-the-mill bootcamp grad that knows how to use the framework-du-jour but is way out of their depth if venturing outside the comfort of the framework and into the depths of those advanced topics.

And I think the gov.uk use case here might actually be an outlier in the sense that it actually considers performance of an already tight codebase, whereas a lot of jQuery deprecation efforts bring with them heavier alternatives in the name of maintainability or developer productivity or hiring or whatever. To be clear, many of these concerns are quite valid, but it seems a bit disingenuous to create a false dichotomy between understanding of low level concerns vs concerns about SDLC management. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[0] https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/

[adrusi]

I think you're trying to draw too much of an analogy here. The point is just that advertising jQuery expertise on your resume today is evidence (though not especially strong evidence) that you might be someone whose skills are of diminishing relevance. Myself, I'm not convinced there's much harm in using jQuery, it's not exactly heavyweight. But if in fact fewer and fewer pages include it, then your expertise is relevant on fewer and fewer pages. It doesn't make sense to add a dependency on jQuery to satisfy a single dev's preference.

If your expertise is in low-level browser performance but you lack deep knowledge of React/etc, your skills aren't of diminishing relevance, and probably won't be for a long time.

[lhorie]

IME, people list jQuery in their resumes all the time, typically as part of some previous job many eons ago. But I have read hundreds of resumes and just don't see people advertising jQuery as a primary skillset anymore, so to me suggesting that people still do this sounds very close to a strawman.

Something like Angular.js is a more apt example of a skill people still do advertise as a primary thing in their resumes these days and it most definitely plays into the diminishing relevance thing. On the other side of the spectrum, you have newbies writing down "HTML/CSS/Javascript" in their resume, which basically screams zero experience (aka "low/no relevance until they learn to speak the cool framework lingo"). There are plenty of other quote and quote "uncool" skills in actual resumes. Flux. Sagas. Ember. Etc.

So, yes, an argument can certainly be made that recruiters/interviewers do "discriminate" against various stereotypes to various degrees, and it isn't necessarily always based on ageism. A recruiter that reached out to me recently had an interesting term to describe this phenomenon: "skill commoditization", aka looking at people as snapshots in time, and evaluating some skillsets to be intrinsically worth less than others, even if they have some amount of overlap, instead of looking at people as malleable entities. It's worth thinking about how treating developers as commodities might hurt your hiring, especially if your hiring revolves heavily around evaluating for expertise in a specific framework.

[lnxg33k1]

I am not sure that the story has anything to do with the situation of jQuery today, because as I can see in your story there was a guy whose skills were of diminishing relevance, but surrounded by people whose skills in that area were never a thing in the first place, what I can draw from your story is that it's useless to cultivate an expertise in a niche field because it will be irrelevant in a few years?

[nonethewiser]

I don't think you're really listening

[_HMCB_]

Thank you. That needed said.

[narag]

I'm curious: what's replaced Query? I guess it's not a single library, but a set of frameworks...

[zelphirkalt]

Plain JavaScript replaced it. jQuery provided useful things at its time, indeed, but JS has been somewhat improved at least and learned the tricks, even improved upon them. JS is still somewhat ugly, but I will give it at least that much. Now one does not really need jQuery any longer for most things, which were done with it. I personally find plain JS API and fetch to be cleaner than jQuery stuff even. People still use jQuery it out of habbit or, because it would be a lot of work to get rid of it everywhere.

[petre]

Fetch is fine but I'm not going to write document.querySelector every time I have to select some nodes, which happens quite often.

[julianlam]

That's fine, pretty sure browsers alias $ and $$ to querySelector and querySelectorAll already (although I could be very wrong)

But speaking as someone who writes vanilla by default, it really really isn't as big an issue as you think it is.

[petre]

I know. Most of its funtionality was superseeded by Js APIs which I already use (Promises vs Deferred, fetch vs. ajax). I might still need an alternative for building and editing query string parameters though. Plus most of the somewhat outdated libs in our project use it anyway.

[pwdisswordfish9]

> pretty sure browsers alias $ and $$ to querySelector and querySelectorAll already (although I could be very wrong)

You are wrong.

[niccl]

upvoted because this is a really good example of how to respond to criticism

[kordlessagain]

> I think of this story whenever I see jQuery popup on Hacker News. There is always a strong contingent of devs who swear by this library. But to me, they are like the old grey beard who didn't update his knowledge as the times changed.

This is a strawman argument. It's a biased view you hold. Because of that, you make up a story to match your biases around people who use such-and-such library don't think they need to update their skill set. I'm not angry about this, but am only pointing out biased arguments create dissonance.

> I see a trend of well-written, evidence backed articles where large, well funded sites are making a case to deprecate jQuery. These fact-based investigations into problems faced by their dev team result in a reasoned decision to remove a dependency that no longer justifies its cost. I encourage everyone to introspect if their defense of jQuery is on an equal technical footing to these types of investigations.

You read something somewhere about how jQuery is a costly dependency. Yet, there are no links that I can see anywhere in the threads here, nor a good rational argument for people to NOT use jQuery because it is a costly dependency. There are opposing opinions on this, but the opinions that it needs to be included via CDN don't address the fact it can be hosted locally and the opinions "who needs all that code to load?" don't take into account that browsers and networks are bonkers fast nowadays. Who cares if it's a bit more code? It's not like jQuery is growing its codebase at the rate compute and network speed increases.

For that matter, could not the same argument be made of JavaScript itself? I taught myself Promises, not because I could stay "relevant", but because it makes good sense to write code that is easy to read and maintain, even if it is me doing both on my project. The code I produced when I wasn't doing Promises was "legacy" the second it hit the repo, and will be "costly" if someone else has to jump in and work on it to convert it to Promises, because they'll have to brain dump what I was thinking (or not) when I wrote it!

This salt and pepper beard stays up on technology. I didn't really write code in the past, but now I'm great at what I do and I fully intend on exploring new technologies when they compliment what I can do rapidly in the frameworks and methods I well understand, if that's what it takes to get to market faster.

[girvo]

> Who cares if it's a bit more code

Well, Gov.uk for one, as per the article you're commenting on. As they pointed out:

> Not everyone is tapping away on their 2022 MacBook Pro on a rip-roarin' broadband connection. GOV.UK has to be accessible to everyone, and that means keepin' it lean.

> Here's a few of the greatest hits from Matt Hobbs on what GOV.UK noticed in removing jQuery:

> - Less front end processing time overall.

> - 11% less blocking time at the 75th percentile.

> - 10% less blocking time for users at the 95th percentile. These are users who experience seriously adverse network and device conditions, and every performance gain matters especially for them.

[adhesive_wombat]

Yes, but that's a government site that's got an explicitly universal audience and is also pretty lightweight already.

If you're making a game, say, you may (may!) not care if Edna can't load it on a 1993 iMac, and you might be loading 40MB of resources, so another 24kB is not your pressing problem.

Engineering effort is always in short supply, and it is very expensive. Use it wisely. Sweeping judgements gleaned from very different products may not apply to your case.

[kordlessagain]

I can promise you Edna's 1993 Mac is dead and she has an iPad now.

[kordlessagain]

At what point did it cease to matter, though? Can anyone provide information on how many computers, world-wide if that's what we're shooting for, pre-date the mid 2010s? Because, after that, all those computers are plenty fast. Again, this particular library isn't growing much in computational demand. As for the bandwidth, let's assume the worst case is 128Kbps. jquery 3.6.0.min is 88KB. That's about a 6 second download. Then it's cached usually. Sure, there will be people on slower connections, but how many? Maybe Gov needs to do that no matter what, but that's not an excuse for other use cases.

[cxr]

jQuery is not the natural state of the world[1]; it's the use of jQuery that needs to be justified—not the decision not to use it...

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29276656

[resonious]

> > I think of this story whenever I see jQuery popup on Hacker News. There is always a strong contingent of devs who swear by this library. But to me, they are like the old grey beard who didn't update his knowledge as the times changed.

> This is a strawman argument.

I'm not sure I follow. It reads to me like the original commenter is arguing that jQuery supporters have out-of-date knowledge. What's the strawman? jQuery supporters?

[kordlessagain]

Yes. Strawmen don't have anything to do with the thing being judged. The supporters are not necessarily grey beards who don't update their knowledge as the times changed. Also, other uses of biases exist in the text:

> his knowledge

Women are programmers too, and there are older ones out there maybe shaking their head at this type of judgement.