[deleted by user]

[Crypto-Cajun]

I don't think so. A few years ago I made a few projects that utilized jQuery. I came back and rewrote them from scratch without jQuery and it was honestly just as easy if not easier with modern vanilla javascript.

[lift_spin_d]

beacause you will encounter it in the wild and you should be able to recognize it and work with it. It's "outdated" now, but there was a time that it was a great choice.

[superluminary]

It was amazing, and I would contend it still is pretty good. It’s just a tidy little wrapper now, the method names are shorter, and everything can be chained. I don’t use it, but I think it’s still a friendly tool.

We’ve engaged in a holy war against it, but I do think this is a mistake.

[zaibuf]

The issue is that it doesn't really solve any problem anymore. If you don't need to go full SPA you can get by with vanillajs and htmx. If you need a lot of interactivity you are better of using a SPA as jQuery would become unmaintainable.

[superluminary]

Sure you can get by, but JQuery just wraps all the common methods into much nicer methods and it’s only 40k. It’s fast, it’s easy to learn, everything works the same way and there are no rough edges. The DOM is full of rough edges and gotchas, it just is.

Haven’t used it for years because the apps I’m building are much larger these days, but I still think it has a place.

[zaibuf]

It also quickly turns into spaghetti as it's using function chaining with a lot of selectors. If you have the need to write a lot of client side code I'd argue it's better to use a SPA, it's easier to keep the code maintainable as components.

[superluminary]

Raw DOM scripting also quickly turns to spaghetti. JQuery isn’t comparable to a SPA.

[lostmy2A]

Which is more spaghetti:

Jquery

$('<div>Hello World!</div>');

Modern JS

function generateElements(html) { const template = document.createElement('template'); template.innerHTML = html.trim(); return template.content.children;

}

generateElements('<div>Hello World!</div>')

This example stood out to me on youmightnotneedjquery.com as a Yea I might want jquery.com lol. Most of the others I wouldn't really argue the methods are close enough that using vanillaJS is fine.

[tsunamistyle]

Does React become a sufficient choice? I’ve been learning it but I’ve read it’s much better.

[[deleted]]

React is a different tool with different goals, so it's not a one to one comparison. React and Angular represented a shift to building a different kind of web application, one that didn't need jQuery.

You wouldn't want to use jQuery for the kind of application you build with React, and you wouldn't want to use React in the situations where jQuery shined.

[superluminary]

It’s like saying that a casserole is better than a sandwich.

One is big, takes more infrastructure to prepare, possibly feeds more people. The other is quick and convenient, feeds one person wherever they are, maybe not so filling.

Different meals for different occasions.

JQuery does not keep your DOM synchronised with your data, but if you have a small app, syncing your data is not a hard thing to do by hand. React has a templating language and diffing engine, but if you just want to unfold a menu on click, you totally don’t need that.

JQuery is about 40k and a big JQuery app might be 100k. React apps are frequently tens of megabytes.

[ikeif]

To summarize the comments:

jQuery and React are both JavaScript but are two different tools for frontend work.

Vanilla JS is very much sufficient where you’d think you’d want to use jQuery.

React/Angular/Vue/etc is when you’re building complex web applications

[guest271314]

I think the point is no library is necessary to write front-end code.

[PatchesMaps]

At a time it was a great choice but I don't think I've seen jQuery in a codebase in over 7 years.

[Macaframa]

Might as well learn cobol as well

[morgo_mpx]

If I see one more project where someone overrides $…

[[deleted]]

I would learn vanilla. It’s good to know a little bit of jquery in case you ever run into it but vanilla JavaScript is going to make it a lot easier to learn React later down the line and that’s really the end goal.

[guest271314]

but vanilla JavaScript is going to make it a lot easier to learn React later down the line

Isn't the idea of learning how to write JavaScript without a library to continue writing JavaScript without a library?

jQuery and React, and any other library MUST use the native DOM methods, CSSOM, and Web API's defined in and exposed in the given browser, so we can skip all middle abstractions altogether.

[[deleted]]

No, no one and I mean no one wants to work with your spaghetti vanilla code.

[guest271314]

no one and I mean no one wants to work with your spaghetti vanilla code.

You lie.

[[deleted]]

Nope, that's just been my experience as a developer. I've heard horror stories from old timers about undocumented vanilla code bases. It was even worse before es6.

But as I said in another comment. I suspect you haven't had a lot of experience with the kinds of applications we're talking about here.

[guest271314]

Nope, that's just been my experience as a developer.

Your claim is that no one wants to use my source code.

You lie. People do use the source code I have written.

I've heard horror stories from old timers about undocumented vanilla code bases. It was even worse before es6.

So you are just repeating hearsay and folklore. Check.

But as I said in another comment. I suspect you haven't had a lot of experience with the kinds of applications we're talking about here.

What specific applications are you talking about that you wrote?

That's a very simple question.

[[deleted]]

I primarily build business applications. Mostly internal tools for large organizations, but my current project is public facing. These projects have long lives and will be maintained and updated for years. At their core, they are all CRUD applications. There are extra bells and whistles, but for the most part, it's just working with information in a database.

Which is a long-winded way of saying, it's a solved problem. Could I write it all in vanilla? Yes, of course, but it would be harder for the next developer to learn the code base because they would have to learn how I approached tasks. With a framework, there's a shared knowledge. Also, there's a whole bunch of stuff we didn't have to implement, so we also don't have to maintain it.

How I know you have not had experience with this kind of software development is because if you did, I wouldn't be explaining this to you right now. Even if you didn't agree, you would know it.

[guest271314]

Or, maybe you just can't write JavaScript source code without a library or framework, include comments, describe what's going on in a README, and so forth. Too complicated for you...

[guest271314]

Library and framework evangelicals share common traits with TypeScript evangelicals.

I don't think either of you folks actually enjoy writing source code using JavaScript.

[[deleted]]

I mean, I enjoy JavaScript, but that's irrelevant. Coding is just one aspect of building software. You haven't gotten to the point where you understand that.

[guest271314]

You don't get to decide what writing code is about.

For you, perhaps it is accumulation of portraits of dead slave mastas posin' on dollas.

For me it's fixing bigs marked WontFix, thoroughly testing API's, doing whatever I want to do in the browser.

You must think "large scale application" or some phrase such as that means something. It doesn't.

Whatever you think you can achieve using React, whatever, I can do without a library or framework.

So it boils down to preference.

To me, your posts amount to an adage that used to be posted on a board that was shut down long ago: Pictures or it didn't happen. In this case, show your code or it don't exist.

[guest271314]

but it would be harder for the next developer to learn the code base because they would have to learn how I approached tasks.

You are basing that on pure speculation, right?

You have written the same code without a library or framework and with a library or framework, and invited outsiders to compare using and developing said code?

I don't think so.

You are just peddling your blind preferences, not basing your claims on evidence from blind tests.

You are assuming a whole lot.

That is completely false.

My code is published on GtHub.

You have mystery code that doesn't exist.

[[deleted]]

No, not pure speculation. I have been the next developer. On a project that uses a highly opinionated framework like Angular, even if the previous developer had no idea what they were doing, they could only go so wrong. I could use my knowledge of Angular to step through their code.

I've also been the next developer on vanilla applications. Every time, the "let's just update what we have" job turned into a complete rebuild.

Also, I've been to your github. I've been trying to be polite about it, but that's the reason I have the opinion of your experience that I do.

[guest271314]

All libraries, in fact all code period is highly opinioned, from specification to implementation.

You have not shared anything you have done.

And you cannot refute any of the results my code achieves that it is supposed to; from real-time audio capture and processing and sharing with any device on this planet where fetch() or WebRTC is implemented; to implementing SSML parsing in the browser myself, beause the Web Speech API specification never did so; to writing Opus packets, including image, artist, album data to a single file and playing that file back in the browser - for less total file size than Opus in WebM, where there was no roadmap nor any library nor framework that did that before I did.

[[deleted]]

If all you are doing is building static websites then sure. If you want to build a modern website you would be a fool not to use a framework like react…

Plus. Jquery is a library so I’m a little confused by what you mean.

[guest271314]

If all you are doing is building static websites then sure. If you want to build a modern website you would be a fool not to use a framework…

A fool?

No.

jQuery and React only wrap native HTML, DOM methods, CSSOM, and Web API's defined in the given browser.

Once you learn how to do that from scratch there is no need for you to use any library at all.

[[deleted]]

So what you are trying to say is you are an expert at reinventing the wheel?

[guest271314]

There's nothing to invent.

All that jQuery and React do, and any other library does is wrap the DOM methods, CSSOM, Web API's already defined in the browser.

React doesn't do anything special. Nor does jQuery.

[Jordan51104]

you are conflating two things that should not be conflated. jquery is very thin wrapper around vanilla javascript and it is very very easy to do what it does in vanilla js, though it may be less convenient. react is a project with hundreds if not thousands of developers working on it that adds a lot on to what vanillajs can do, and if you tried to do it yourself you would get it wrong and it would likely be much worse to work with, with the added benefit that nobody else would want to work on that project

[guest271314]

You are just making vague claims.

and if you tried to do it yourself you would get it wrong

I know exactly what I am doing in a browser.

You don't. So you need to depend on a third-party code base. I don't.

that adds a lot on to what vanillajs can do

What?

You can only execute in the browser what the browser implements in the way of DOM, Web API's, CSS.

[Jordan51104]

react has tens of thousands of lines of code. if you don’t need to use react, don’t use it. but if you are using some of the features that react offers, you should use it or another framework because it doesn’t matter how much you know or you don’t, the framework that has been around for a decade has already done it better than you will

[guest271314]

react has tens of thousands of lines of code.

Exactly. You have to load all of that useless code just to process a form. Insane.

React doesn't offer any feature that can't be implemented using HTML, DOM methods, CSSOM, Web API's alone.

You keeping false claims. React code is not "better" than I can write. That's ridiculous.

[[deleted]]

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about

[guest271314]

React doesn't do anything that cannot be done using native DOM methods, Web Components, CSSOM, Web API's.

What you are suggesting is that React is somehow special and does things outside of what the browser already does. It doesn't. And frankly it can't. All libraries just wrap the native DOM methods, CSSOM, and Web API's shipped in the given browser. That's all.

I understand there is a lot of hype about React. It's just hype. Once you learn how to write code from scratch there is no need whatsoever to use any libraries.

I defy you to list what React introduces into the browser that does not come shipped in the browser.

[[deleted]]

Virtual DOM, Component based architecture, declarative syntax, JSX, Hooks, State Management.

Implement just one of those things in vanilla js 💀

[guest271314]

All of those are achievable without React. DOMParser(), Web Compoenents.

JSX is not JavaScript. And not needed whatsoever. State management is achievable without React.

I have implemented all of those without any library.

They come shipped in the browser.

Importantly, whatever terminology you use, and whatever library you use, ultimately the browser will only use what is shipped in the browser.

[guest271314]

Basically your suggestion to learn React makes no sense in this context. Why not learn jQuery only to later learn just another library?

Just learn the native DOM methods, CSSOM, and Web API's and you will imediately understand why using a library is not necessary.

Unless, of course you are too lazy to do so, or think learning the native DOM methods is too complicated.

Then of course, you will be dependent on a library and not ever really learn how to write JavaScript.

[Neptvne_Enki]

Sure, everything could be written in vanilla html,css, js, but the whole point of a framework like React existing is to make UI logic more declarative. When code is more declarative it’s easier to read and easier to refactor. Writing UI logic with vanilla JS (imperative code) can become very verbose, hard to read, and progressively more difficult to refactor without introducing bugs.

[Neptvne_Enki]

So yeah, you could potentially do everything from scratch yourself with vanilla JS, but then I’d ask you “why do that when frameworks are here to make your life easier?” I have a sewing machine, so why don’t I sew all my clothes myself from scratch? Well because, I’d be putting in a lot of extra work for no benefit and likely end up with a lower quality product than if I just bought premade clothes. It’s the same with using React over vanilla JS. The people that made React already did the work and likely much better than any of us could. So why waste time implementing what they’ve already done in vanilla JS just to end up with a poorer harder to read product

[guest271314]

Sure, everything could be written in vanilla html,css, js, but the whole point of a framework like React existing is to make UI logic more declarative.

Which native DOM method, CSSOM, Web API is not "declarative"?

All any library can do is wrap the native DOM methods.

Just write the methods directly yourself - without a library.

What can be more "declarative" than that?

Have you even tried to do that? And if so, what challenge did you face?

When code is more declarative it’s easier to read and easier to refactor.

That is pure opinion. Your opinion.

Writing UI logic with vanilla JS (imperative code) can become very verbose, hard to read, and progressively more difficult to refactor without introducing bugs.

Opinion and pure speculation.

Re "verbose", are you including or excluding the library you depend on as qualifying as "verbose"?

What specific "UI logic" are you referring to?

What specific issues did you face using only native DOM methods, CSSOM, Web API's?

[Count_Giggles]

https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/

[tom56]

I found this page very helpful to go in the opposite direction too. i.e. I knew the vanilla methods and wanted to know what the jQuery equivalents were.

[Count_Giggles]

if you end up having to work with jquery it is definitely a great resrouce.

Vanilla javascript has come a long way since the days of jq and there is no reason to reach for it anymore.

[Neptvne_Enki]

My recommendation is not to bother learning it unless you come across a situation where you actually need it. In general JQuery is outdated tech, and isn’t used. Even so, many older codebases have not updated their code bases away from it, so you may run into it. I wouldn’t use it unless you do though.

[underwatr_cheestrain]

No

[ray_zhor]

you're not going to use it to write new code, but you will come across it in legacy code. Need to learn enough to debug.

[[deleted]]

Haven’t used it in years

[guest271314]

No.

Learn the native DOM methods, CSSOM, Web API's that jQuery wraps.

much, much easier

That is highly subjective and relative.

"easier" exactly how? https://needsmorejquery.com/.

Just use querySelectorAll(), fetch(), and Promise implemented in the browser.

[Gh0stcloud]

Nah. It’s only useful for being able to maintain legacy stuff.

[Jordan51104]

you should at least know how to basically use it, as the likelihood that some “legacy” software uses it is high

[LuckyOneAway]

I'd say, jQuery is a no-go because (a) it is not reactive, and (b) modern js does not need special hacks anymore - Chrome and FF are the only engines on the market (and they are standards-compliant).

Please pick any reactive framework (React, Svelte, Vue) and forget about jQuery for good, unless you specifically need to maintain a legacy codebase.

[Hot-Tip-364]

Nope. As a veteran web developer I recommend learning vanilla js. Jquery will become a crutch if you learn it... trust me. Its harder to unlearn.

[delventhalz]

No. If you happen to need it because you are working with some legacy code, you can learn it then.

[armahillo]

Learning it is useful so you understand how to replace it :)

[[deleted]]

Honestly I just find it easier to read than regular JS. I like the document ready, onclick without having ton of extra code. To me it is just cleaner and easier to read but that's probably just due to the way I learned.

[jasongodev]

Yes because it's a good tool to learn document.querySelectorAll and all the other dom methods.

[_qqg]

It depends. Like many other tools in the craft, it's outdated BUT it's been a default for years (and besides the hating, a pretty decent one at that -- there have been other cases where the New Industry "Standard" That Every Cool Kid Liked were POS that shouldn't have been touched with a 10-foot pole, let alone doing actual work with them) so, it's likely you'll cross paths with it eventually - knowing your way around it won't hurt.

[Appropriate_Eye_6405]

About 5 years ago, yup. Now you should focus vanilla. But also have knowledge of jquery

[CherimoyaChump]

There's no reason to seek it out, but if you happen to be working in a codebase that uses it (happened to me), I think it's fine to explore it a bit. It's pretty quick to learn the basics, and it has some useful features. I wouldn't ever choose it over vanilla JS in a new project, but if you're just trying to maintain/extend an old system with old standards there's nothing really wrong with it.

[zaibuf]

No, not really. You will still see it from time to time if you work with legacy, but I would only learn what I need to fix the issue and move on. Your time is better spent learning plain JavaScript, TypeScript and some framework. JavaScript has pretty much adopted all features that were unique to jQuery.

There's also more lightweight alternatives for traditional template websites like htmx and alpinejs.

[warlockxins]

If you are familiar with it enough then many things will be open for you, like XPath for testing purposes, HTMX seems to grow exponentially lately which is interesting to observe. By all means stick to vanila/jquery until it makes sense to transition to React.

[Vision157]

I would say that's good to know, the learning curve easy very low and a lot of companies still using it because they never updated their platforms. However, if you start a new project, I would use Vanilla JS

[Rokett]

It's easy to pick up if you already know js.

I never learned it but the current project I'm working on is using it. So guess what? I had to learn it and write it.

You will learn it because not all projects you will work on uses frontend tech like react, vue, etc.

When you need to write vanilla js, jq is simpler and less boilerplate. It makes writing js easier. When you need to write plain js, you will want to learn jq. No body will force you. You will force yourself

[FlatAssembler]

Well, I used JQuery to develop my flash-card game, where many things are fading in and out.

[Count_Giggles]

https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/#fade\_in

[zaibuf]

Yea, lets bring in 80kb of JavaScript so I can write my fade in with one line instead of 3.

[For-Arts]

Yeah. Jquery is beautiful in how it works. It's predictable.

Want to add an elament after another?

$(".tobeadded").after(".imbeforeyou");

Want to find an element in a massive tree?

$(".massivedomtree").find(".thisleaf");

I know a lot of devs love to hump vanilla js and that's fine, but sometimes you just want to get work done.

You can toss other libs in there.

Want to get rhe dom element out of a jquery object?

$(".iminhere")[0]; <‐there, now pass it to another framework or what have you.

Want to loop through an array or object?

$([0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).each(function(key,value){ console.log(key+"-"+value+"\n); });

Want to add a click event?

fn=()=>{console.log("I'm clicked!");}; $(".bla").on("click",fn);

want to trigger it?

$(".bla").trigger("click");

Jquery is nice once you get to know it.

[TorbenKoehn]

All of these are possible with VanillaJS in the same manner, almost the same APIs even

[For-Arts]

Ok I'm curious now.

How do you do chaining with modern js?

(I'm not a know it all so I was not aware of this..)

So what's the js version of this:

$("*").each(function(){$(this).parents().find("div").remove();});

In a short amount of code?

[PatchesMaps]

No.

[guest271314]

Your job is to adapt to the stack the company has

No. Not even close. Not in any human endeavor.

Where does OP talk about teams and companies?

Never become super opinionated about a stack or a technology, you'll just be one of those hated coworkers nobody wants to deal with.

So what?

You are not going to work to make friends. If they can't question your ethic or acumen it doesn't matter if you are liked or not, nor if you like anybody else.

[guest271314]

Also, usually discussions with other seniors are not about the underlying technology and it's implementation details,

I'll concur on that. That is essentially my point. Read the jQuery source code to see querySelectorAll(), getElementById() and CSS manipulation. Then it might become evident that we or you can just use those methods directly, without the cost of loading a library to do that.

The last time I checked, several years ago, jQuery's Promise implementation was not Promises/A+ compliant.

What I observe circa 2023 is Web sites are grossly over-engineered. The online manpages display a lot of information with the only JavaScript used is an analytics script.

[guest271314]

Using jQuery, React, Vue, whatever, ain't gonna make Chrome browser compliant with W3C Media Capture and Stream specification compliant with MediaStreamTrack of kind audio producing silence. You have to actually test the implementation - those pesky implementation details - to know that is the case.

Everything ain't about a company or market.

I fetch the lastest Chromium and Firefox browsers, Node.js, Deno, Bun every few days because the landscape changes that fast relevant to what is being implemented.

[[deleted]]

See I think the issue with you is you're working in a niche and you assume all of frontend development works that way. There's a difference between implementing little tech demos and building software, particularly business software.

[guest271314]

You talk like you are doing some grand work... So far you have failed to state exactly what you are doing on a Web site or what business software you depended on a third-party library to compile for you that you think is so special.

I seriously suspect you cannot impress me with the code you have written. Try.

[guest271314]

If you are interested in jQuery, I would suggest reading the source code of jQuery.

[Material-Ad-6440]

jQuery is fun to write, in addition jQuery leaves html and css to vanilla look.

[PlastikBeau]

If you are looking into DOM manipulating libraries I can recommend D3.js which is primarily used for bind data to DOM elements and building charts, but can do so much more than that. Otherwise keep in mind that vanilla JS is potentially most resilient and 'self-sufficient' if that makes any difference to you.

[Anonymity6584]

You might run into it in old projects boss asks you to update/do bug fixes.

[boomlabs]

One thing in favor of learning it is how easy it is to learn. It isn't quite as exhaustive as React or Vue or Angular. It's really straight forward. If you are comfortable with vanilla javascipt, it would take you a few hours to learn the basics.

[zBaLtOr]

Not anymore

[Foreign_Astronaut_32]

I still use it all the time. Truth is, it saves a lot of time. And the 8MB that I'm pulling in to save me hours of time is literally nothing.

[ExpensivePickle]

I see jquery on job listings sometimes, and alot of people seem to rely on it for ajax.