[cgarvey]

I love how critical everyone is being of this site, despite the fact this organization has saved us all so much effort and time during our careers.

I'm easily willing to forgive a few browser compatibility bugs considering what they've done for the Web. I'm also happy they've updated their site, it was a long time coming and I think it looks great, certainly an improvement in my eyes.

[ergo14]

What exactly did they "do to the web", that other JS frameworks do not provide? Because I could name few things like requirejs/cometd that came from for example dojo foundation (dojotoolkit), that did influence the way people work with javascript.

[MoOmer]

For one, their documentation has consistently been accessible to beginners. Other frameworks might have had some crossover functionality, but Jq wrapped it all up in a neat, concise, package complete with a supportive community and excellent documentation that takes away the intimidation for new entrants.

Anyone who has written an 'Ajax' connection call in JavaScript can attest to the relief it has brought on that front alone.

DOM manipulation within your scripts, without having to patch together different libraries in an unreadable mess is nice too.

I've done limited things with the tool, and I can see its benefits clearly - maybe because I see the tool as a curated forest, where those packages you mentioned are like scattered, but awesome in their own right, trees.

Forgive me for the short response, I'm on a phone.

[ergo14]

Fair enough, although it looks like you don't have comparison with other tools. Thanks for non-hostile answer.

[moogleii]

I don't think he suggested anywhere that other frameworks didn't contribute. Sounds like you're just trying to pick a fight.

[ergo14]

No, I'm just curious what is the rationale behind words like the poster above me. I wouldn't call having different view on things picking a fight.