[iLoch]

They wouldn't remove it even if they had the choice, because recreating what jQuery does with regards to cross-browser compatibility is just wasting everyones time. I'm not saying it has to be jQuery, but since everyone is already familiar with jQuery and it works well - why not jQuery? Eventually yes I think we can drop jQuery in favour of native implementations, but most sites can't afford to lose that compatibility yet.

[warble]

Because it's not built for complexity? Maybe I'm a jQuery newb, but trying to built a tight app with it seems like a painful process. Sure, it's easy to build some quick tricks with it, but I'd hate to maintain a large project with a lot of it embedded.

[joesb]

I honestly can't see how jQuery dictate how you architect your code. jQuery is a DOM manipulating library and AJAX library. It is not a framework. It doesn't force you to organize your code in any particular way. You know that jQuery is not forcing you to not write everything in a single main function, right?

So I fail to see how using $('#...").foo() in your large project is going to be harder to maintain than rolling your own DOM manipulating library.

[warble]

If all I'm doing is domConstruct.put() instead of $().append() then of course you're right. Dojo in addition to browser normalization and other good things that jQuery does, suggests a structure that works pretty well. jQuery to my knowledge does not.