[wvenable]

You might be right about the discussion. But I was thinking about this and I think my point comes down to the basic issue of almost every library or big piece of software. Nobody uses 100% of any big library. Nobody uses 100% of Microsoft Word. Most people use about 20%. But the problem is everyone uses a different 20% so libraries and software have a lot of features.

The argument against jQuery is thus an argument against libraries in general. Why include any dependency that you only use a small part of? You can always implement anything yourself.

The counting bytes comment is because the web, as a platform, is very size-conscious. Rarely does anyone complain about the size of libc and how, since they only use file functions, that should just call into the Linux kernel directly.

Would we even by having this discussion if you could just tree-shake out all the parts of jQuery that you never use at build time?

[ratww]

> The argument against jQuery is thus an argument against libraries in general.

Then it's a nice thing that I never made any argument against including jQuery or any library in a page or project, nor I'm saying anyone should reimplement it, or even do anything. I'm not talking about those things.

> Would we even by having this discussion

We aren't even having this discussion. Seems like you're having an argument against an imaginary version of me. I'm not saying (or implying) the things you are arguing against.

[wvenable]

Your argument is that is that body is going to re-implement all of jQuery with their own helper functions. I got that. It's just not a very interesting point. Was I using hyperbole -- yes. You got me.