| > These aren't really what the author claims. As the author, I can assure you they are what I claim them to be: Points in the source code that identify some issue in some browser. > The first two are actually the same thing, Whoops! I thought I had removed the first one. Thanks for the bug report. The second is true, we received bug reports when we used we had issues with "use strict" in Firefox. I removed the first one anyway. > The third is just noting that a jQuery function doesn't work in some contexts. Wrong, it's a note about IE reporting the wrong value. > The fourth and fifth (which, like #1, are two lines from the same comment) are just documenting a try/catch block because something jQuery is doing might throw an exception. Because a particular browser has abnormal behaviour. > The seventh is just an attribute named "support". I thought removed that. It matched "support:", so you're still wrong. > So far it looks like this isn't actually a list of reasons you will need jQuery Accept that it does with the exception of two things I thought I had removed. You owe me an apology. |
I don't know exactly how many of the issues are real. Since of the ones I listed only 3 of 5 were real even by your count, I'd be surprised if none of the others were at all questionable. But even if we accept that they're all real, hair-on-fire problems with vanilla JavaScript, I still think you're going too far. At the very least, jQuery is not the only library out there that handles compatibility issues. Lots of people who use other libraries do not "need jQuery."
Basically, I think you have made a much broader claim than you have been able to support so far. I'm absolutely not trying to knock the hard work of the jQuery team or suggest that jQuery is useless. If you had just said, "jQuery is still really useful. Here's a few things it does for you that you'd never think of," I'd have said, "Great post — thanks for reminding everyone." Instead, you took a very hard line that came off as pretty combative, but your supporting examples were really shaky. So I disagreed.