jQuery 4

19 hours ago (blog.jquery.com)

Related: This is a nice write-up of how to write reactive jQuery. It's presented as an alternative to jQuery spaghetti code, in the context of being in a legacy codebase where you might not have access to newer frameworks.

https://css-tricks.com/reactive-jquery-for-spaghetti-fied-le...

  • This brought me flashbacks of jQuery spaghetti monsters from years ago, some were Backbone related. In retrospect, over-engineered React code can be worse than decently organized jQuery code, but some jQuery mess was worse than any React code. So I guess I'm saying, React did raise the bar and standard of quality - but it can get to be too much, sometimes a judicious use of old familiar tool gets the job done.

    • You reminded me of a time where one of my clients asked me to add a feature on a file uploader written in react/redux. This was early 2021.

      I kid you not, there were 30+ redux actions chaining in the most incomprehensible ways, the form literally had a textual input, a button to open the file explorer and a submit button.

      It took few weeks one of their Romanian team to build it and apparently that team was reassigned and nobody could touch it without them.

      I remember writing pages and pages of notes to understand how this all tied up in those extremely complex chains and claiming progress after few hours when I achieved to simplify the flow by removing a handful of these actions. Hooray.

      Then it suddenly dawned on me that...I could just rewrite it from scratch.

      Nuked the entirety of that nonsense and replaced it with a single useState in a matter of few hours also implemented the newly requested features.

      The client could not believe my progress and the fact I also removed many of their previous issues.

      Then I had a second realization: React was useless too and it got dropped for native HTML forms and a handful of JS callbacks.

      9 replies →

    • >> This brought me flashbacks of jQuery spaghetti monsters from years ago, some were Backbone related.

      To be fair, jQuery was a response to the the IE and JS variant mess of the early 2000s. jQuery made development possible without debugging across three browser varients.

  • I used this approach before and it indeed works better than the 2010-style jQuery mess. A good fit for userscripts too, where the problem you attempt to solve is fairly limited and having dependencies, especially with a build steps, is a pain. Note that you don't need jQuery for this at all, unless you are somehow stuck with ancient browser support as a requirement - querySelector, addEventListener, innerHtml - the basic building blocks of the approach - have been available and stable for a long time.

    • Unfortunately, nowadays writing userscripts is much harder than it used to be. Most websites are using some sort of reactive FE framework so you need to make extensive use of mutationObservers (or whatever the equivalent is in jQuery I guess).

      7 replies →

  • The last major jquery app I wrote ended up using a similar reactive pattern. I had to shoehorn a custom search engine frontend into a Joomla CMS where I wasn’t allowed to change much. Good times!

Still one of my favourite libs on the whole planet. I will always love jQuery. It is responsible for my career in (real) companies.

Live on jQuery! Go forth and multiply!

  • Someone should just hook up a virtual dom to jQuery, it's got a whole plugin ecosystem that AI could really re-use. Jquery + Jquery UI + Jquery Plugins + AI is probably a super power we're all overlooking.

    • The first time I read this I assumed you were joking about hooking up a virtual dom. But I think you're being serious.

      Why hook up a virtual dom when you have a real one? Unless you're saying AI can't interact reliably with a real browser yet.

Whenever HTMX comes up here, I always think "isn't that just some gobbledy-gook which replaces about 3 lines of imperative jquery?"

Anyway, jQuery always did the job, use it forever if it solves your problems.

  • The problem with jQuery is that, being imperative, it quickly becomes complex when you need to handle more than one thing because you need to cover imperatively all cases.

    • Yeah, that's the other HN koan about "You probably don't need React if..." But if you are using jquery/vanilla to shove state into your HTML, you probably actually do need something like react.

      1 reply →

    • Part of me feels the same way, and ~2015 me was full on SPA believer, but nowadays I sigh a little sigh of relief when I land on a site with the aesthetic markers of PHP and jQuery and not whatever Facebook Marketplace is made out of. Not saying I’d personally want to code in either of them, but I appreciate that they work (or fail) predictably, and usually don’t grind my browser tab to a halt. Maybe it’s because sites that used jQuery and survived, survived because they didn’t exceed a very low threshold of complexity.

      3 replies →

  • These days I’ve moved to native JS, but hot damn the $() selector interface was elegant and minimal vs document.getElement[s]by[attribute)].

    While presumably jquery is slower than native selectors, maybe that could be pre-computed away.

    • In case you missed them: check out querySelector and querySelectorAll. They are closer to what the jQuery selector system does, and I think they were inspired by it.

      If the verbosity bothers you, you can always define an utility function with a short name (although I'm not personally a fan of this kind of things).

      https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/API/Document/querySel...

      https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/API/Document/querySel...

      https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/API/Element/querySele...

      https://developer.mozilla.org/docs/Web/API/Element/querySele...

      7 replies →

    • const $ = document.querySelector.bind(document);

      const $$ = document.querySelectorAll.bind(document);

    • Very simple jquery implementation with all the easy apis:

        (function (global) {
          function $(selector, context = document) {
            let elements = [];
      
            if (typeof selector === "string") {
              elements = Array.from(context.querySelectorAll(selector));
            } else if (selector instanceof Element || selector === window || selector === document) {
              elements = [selector];
            } else if (selector instanceof NodeList || Array.isArray(selector)) {
              elements = Array.from(selector);
            } else if (typeof selector === "function") {
              // DOM ready
              if (document.readyState !== "loading") {
                selector();
              } else {
                document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", selector);
              }
              return;
            }
      
            return new Dollar(elements);
          }
      
          class Dollar {
            constructor(elements) {
              this.elements = elements;
            }
      
            // Iterate
            each(callback) {
              this.elements.forEach((el, i) => callback.call(el, el, i));
              return this;
            }
      
            // Events
            on(event, handler, options) {
              return this.each(el => el.addEventListener(event, handler, options));
            }
      
            off(event, handler, options) {
              return this.each(el => el.removeEventListener(event, handler, options));
            }
      
            // Classes
            addClass(className) {
              return this.each(el => el.classList.add(...className.split(" ")));
            }
      
            removeClass(className) {
              return this.each(el => el.classList.remove(...className.split(" ")));
            }
      
            toggleClass(className) {
              return this.each(el => el.classList.toggle(className));
            }
      
            hasClass(className) {
              return this.elements[0]?.classList.contains(className) ?? false;
            }
      
            // Attributes
            attr(name, value) {
              if (value === undefined) {
                return this.elements[0]?.getAttribute(name);
              }
              return this.each(el => el.setAttribute(name, value));
            }
      
            removeAttr(name) {
              return this.each(el => el.removeAttribute(name));
            }
      
            // Content
            html(value) {
              if (value === undefined) {
                return this.elements[0]?.innerHTML;
              }
              return this.each(el => (el.innerHTML = value));
            }
      
            text(value) {
              if (value === undefined) {
                return this.elements[0]?.textContent;
              }
              return this.each(el => (el.textContent = value));
            }
      
            // DOM manipulation
            append(content) {
              return this.each(el => {
                if (content instanceof Element) {
                  el.appendChild(content.cloneNode(true));
                } else {
                  el.insertAdjacentHTML("beforeend", content);
                }
              });
            }
      
            remove() {
              return this.each(el => el.remove());
            }
      
            // Utilities
            get(index = 0) {
              return this.elements[index];
            }
      
            first() {
              return new Dollar(this.elements.slice(0, 1));
            }
      
            last() {
              return new Dollar(this.elements.slice(-1));
            }
          }
      
          global.$ = $;
        })(window);

  • I pretty much use HTMX and vanilla JS to solve most problems, when I use Django at least. Keeps things simple and gives that SPA feel to the app too.

Much like I am sure anyone else who started doing web dev in the 2000s and 2010s before SPA frameworks were as prevalent I learned web development scripting with jQuery and I am happy to see its still around. Theres so many things I built on top of jQuery in those early years that likely still work. Kudos to the team.

Nice to see it still around and updated. The sad part is I guess this means React will be around in 2060.

  • What's wrong with React?

    It made it so much better to build apps vs. spaghetti jQuery.

    I still have nightmares about jeeping track of jQuery callbacks

    • Complex APIs that require intimacy with internals with their gotchas.

      Complex rendering model and hard to tame lifecycle since they ditched the class component. Very hard to get performant websites (but you're free to link me what you've produced with React and prove me wrong).

      Also, biggest issue: severely misused for websites that are mostly static content and are nowhere near "app-like" nor have any particular reactivity need. 95%+ of react "applications" would've benefited from being written with a templating language instead.

      E.g. Github was miles better under all aspects when it used ruby but of course somebody had to sell to upper management their promotion case.

      1 reply →

    • It's overly verbose, unintuitive and in 2025, having a virtual dom is no longer compulsory to write interactive web apps. If you want to write modern web apps, you can use Svelte. If you want to write web apps truly functionally, you can use Elm. React is the jQuery of our times. It was really helpful in the Angular era but we are living at the dawn of a new era now.

      5 replies →

    • The problem with React is that it solved frontend.

      So the options are to 1. Code React all day and be happy with it. 2. Come up with reasons why it's bad.

      There are many talented and intellectually curious people in the field which lean towards 2.

      5 replies →

Congrats to everyone involved in the jQuery 4.0 release.

For what it’s worth, if you’re looking for a more structured approach on top of jQuery, JsViews (https://jsviews.com) provides a reactive templating and data-binding system that’s been around and stable for many years.

It hasn’t seen the same level of adoption as newer frameworks, but it may still be of interest to people who prefer the jQuery ecosystem.

  • That looks interesting, I'm not likely to write any jQuery any time soon, but I'll check out the source code to see if I can learn anything from it.

    Regarding adoption levels, the JsViews website made me think I had accidentally toggled the "Desktop Site" option in my Iceweasel browser, I wonder if that scared people off. Or perhaps it's because, as others mentioned, most jQuery development these days is in legacy codebases where the devs are not allowed to add any new libraries, reducing the adoption rates of any new jQuery libraries even more than you'd expect based on the raw nrs of jQuery users.

    (the website does work though, and it loads fast. Which is something I've always appreciated about jQuery based sites still alive today. The only thing I'm missing is any indication of how big it is when minified + gzipped. EDIT: jsrender.js is 33.74 kB, jsrender.min.js a mere 12.82 kB)

    • I’ve been collaborating with Boris, the author of JsViews, and we do have plans to modernize the website—which speaks directly to your point about first impressions and adoption. You’re absolutely right that presentation matters; if something looks dated, people may disengage before digging any deeper.

      I also raised the jQuery dependency concern with Boris for exactly the reason you mentioned: many teams automatically rule out anything that requires jQuery, especially outside of legacy codebases. That’s a real barrier today.

      For what it’s worth, a jQuery-free version may happen. Boris is actively exploring it, but he’s making no promises—it’s a non-trivial problem and would effectively require a full rewrite rather than a simple refactor.

I cannot express how much I admire the amount of effort jQuery puts into their upgrade tools.

Unbelievably, still supports IE 11 which is scheduled to be deprecated in jQuery 5.0

  • Backwards compatibility. Apparently there are still some people stuck on IE11. It's nice that jQuery still supports those users and the products that they are still running.

    • This is the part that I find the strangest:

      > We also dropped support for other very old browsers, including Edge Legacy, iOS versions earlier than the last 3, Firefox versions earlier than the last 2 (aside from Firefox ESR), and Android Browser.

      Safari from iOS 16, released in 2022, is more modern in every conceivable way than MSIE 11. I'd also bet there are more people stuck with iOS 16- than those who can only use IE 11, except maybe at companies with horrid IT departments, in which case I kind of see this as enabling them to continue to suck.

      I'd vote to rip the bandaid off. MSIE is dead tech, deader than some of the other browsers they're deprecating. Let it fade into ignomony as soon as possible.

      16 replies →

  • Microsoft will support IE 11 until 2032 in Windows 10 LTSC and IE Mode in Edge on Windows 11.

  • Not everybody in the world can use modern hard- and software. There are tons of school computer labs running old software

I love jQuery and it’s elegant methods chaining over object / array of DOM elements you keep in the chain.

15+ years ago I wrote a tutorial for french people about using jQuery, it got a lot of views. I hope it helped spread jQuery.

It's amazing how much jQuery is still used today. Even on modern websites you can often find it included (browser devtools -> jQuery in the console, and see). And not just on hobbyist sites, but on serious company websites and their web tools as well.

If you are using server side rendering is jQuery or native JS all you need or is is still worth looking into more complicated JS frontends?

Everything I ever used jquery for 15 years ago, I found myself able to do with the CSS and the JS standard library maybe 10 years ago. I honestly am confused when I see jquery used today for anything.

Is there still anything jquery does you cannot easily do with a couple lines of stdlib?

  • The terse and chainable jQuery syntax is more readable, easier to remember, and thus more pleasant to maintain. Rewriting for stdlib is easy, but bloats out the code by forcing you to pepper in redundant boilerplate on nearly every line.

The first time I truly enjoyed web development was when I got the hang of jQuery. Made everything so much simple and usable!

  • jQuery made a messy ecosystem slightly less fragmented. Combined with CKEditor it effectively tamed a lot of web-developer chaos until nodejs dropped. =3

I feel so old. jQuery was hate/ok early in my career, as I started on the tail end of HTML5/in the middle of ES6 with all the new stuff.

20 Years! I remember when jQuery first release I thought in 5 to 10 years time we wont need jQuery because everything jQuery has will be built into the browser or becomes part of HTML Spec.

But then Google, Chrome, iPhone, PWA or JS for everything took over and took a completely different path to what I imagine webpage would be.

jQuery was very useful when many features were missing or not consistent/standardized between browsers. Nowadays, JS / DOM API is very rich, mature and standardized. So, jQuery is not as necessary as it was before.

https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/

Yes, sometimes the vanilla JS analogs are not the most elegant, but the vast majority are not terribly complicated either.

IMHO, another advantage of vanilla JS (aside from saving ~30KB) is potentially easier debugging. For example, I could find / debug the event listeners using the dev tools more easily when they were implemented via vanilla JS, since for complicated event listeners I had to step through a lot of jQuery code.

> includes some breaking changes

Most of the changes are completely reasonable - a lot are internal cleanup that would require no code changes on the user side, dropping older browsers, etc.

But the fact that there are breaking API changes is the most surprising thing to me. Projects that still use jQuery are going to be mostly legacy projects (I myself have several lying around). Breaking changes means more of an upgrade hassle on something that's already not worth much of an upgrade hassle to begin with. Removing things like `jQuery.isArray` serve only to make the upgrade path harder - the internal jQuery function code could literally just be `Array.isArray`, but at least then you wouldn't be breaking jQuery users' existing code.

At some point in the life of projects like these, I feel like they should accept their place in history and stop themselves breaking compatibility with any of the countless thousands (millions!) of their users' projects. Just be a good clean library that one can keep using without having to think about it forever and ever.

  • I don’t understand your use case. If you’ve got legacy projects that you don’t want to touch, why upgrade a dependency to a new major version? You can keep using jquery without having to think about it. Just keep using version 3.7 and don’t even think about version 4.

    • To fix vulnerabilities?

      I recently had to upgrade from jQuery 2 to the latest version, because an client demanded it (security issues), and just ran into compatibility issues with third party libs/plugins.

Ive never been a frontend guy, although I was a heavy user of jquery when I needed it. But I cant help but stick to my roots.... LONG LIVE PROTOYPE!

That changelog is wild; it closes out dozens of issues that have been open on Github for 5+ years. I assume that's related to this being the first new major version in years.

Has anyone done any benchmarks yet to see how jQuery 4 compares to jQuery 3.7?

Congrats on shipping!!!! It's been a long time since I've written any jQuery but I remember how wonderful it was to work with in the age of browser inconstancies. Thank you EJohn and the team for continuing the project.

For us that started doing web apps as soon as the web was invented, JQ was a miracle.

Thanks guys!

I still love the simplicity a ajax call can be done in Jquery

  • What does jQuery provide that the Fetch API doesn’t?

    • Upload progress. The Fetch API offers no way observe and display progress when uploading a file (or making any large request). jQuery makes this possible via the `xhr` callback.

I love that they support ES6 modules, Trusted Types, and CSP! The clearing out of old APIs that have platform replacements is nice to see too!

That bit about focus event order gave me flashbacks and raised my heart rate by a couple of bpm. Had some bad times with that ~15 years ago!

What is the usecase for this in the age of React, NextJS? And for static sites we have Astro etc. And even if you need something simple why use jQuery? Vanila JS has better API now. Am I missing anything?

  • I do a lot of custom JS widget development, games, and utilities that are outside the context of a gigantic framework like React. Not everything is a a full-page SPA. Vanilla JS is indeed better than it was, but I found myself writing small JQ-like libraries and utilities to do tedious or even basic DOM manipulation, so I switched back to JQ and saved myself a lot of time and headaches. Compressed, minified JQ is also pretty small and is negligible in space consumption.

    JQ is also used in frameworks like Bootstrap (although I think they’re trying to drop third-party dependencies like this since they tend to cause conflicts).

    I have also used JQ in an Angular app where complex on-the-fly DOM manipulation just isn’t practical with standard tooling.

  • Hobbyists don’t want to learn every new framework. Someone can have a small business website for their activity and have been happy using jQuery since 2010.

Amazing oss library, glad its still being maintained!

  • Meh. I was a Mootools connoisseur back in the day and saddened how jQuery became more popular.

    I’m glad JavaScript has evolved to the point we don’t need jQuery anymore.

I thought this would include more drastic changes, but it seems that this is more house cleaning stuff, like, "nobody should really be using this in 2026". They are providing a library for someone who really likes jQuery and wants to use it over something like React. (Which is completely fine and reasonable.)

Looks like the core behavior doesn't change, something that people complain about, e.g. https://github.blog/engineering/engineering-principles/remov...

> This syntax is simple to write, but to our standards, doesn’t communicate intent really well. Did the author expect one or more js-widget elements on this page? Also, if we update our page markup and accidentally leave out the js-widget classname, will an exception in the browser inform us that something went wrong? By default, jQuery silently skips the whole expresion when nothing matched the initial selector; but to us, such behavior was a bug rather than a feature.

I completely agree with this, because I have been bitten so many times by this from subtle bugs. However I can see some other people not caring about any of it.

I already know that I am definitely not going to use jQuery in my personal projects, and there is no chance that my workspace does. (I much prefer letting a framework handle rendering for me based on data binding.) So none of that concerns me. But good luck to jQuery and anyone who sticks with it.

This is huge. jQuery is still my way to go for any website requiring some custom interaction that isn't available in vanilla js.

Long-time user here. It served me well for years, though I haven't really touched it since the 3.0 days. Glad to see it's still being maintained.

is there any reason to use jquery if you've never used it before

  • Don’t let all of the old heads glazing jquery in this thread confuse you - they’re just nostalgic. There’s no reason to even think of using jquery in 2026

Wow, this is interesting to see. I thought jQuery was dead.

My next question would be, is this something that OpenAI and Anthropic would train their data on? If I ask Claude Code to write an app and utilize jQuery, would it resolve to the previous version until it's retrained in a newer model?

I was surprised that for most of my smaller use cases, Zepto.js was a drop-in replacement that worked well. I do need to try the jQuery slim builds, I've never explored that.

  • Zepto! That's a name I haven't heard in years. I don't remember how it happened but I'm still a member of the ZeptoJS org on Github.

    • I really like that project! Why don't y'all hand it over to someone willing to do maintenance or at least archive it?

I used jQuery for the past ~ 10 years on smaller apps and I had no problems with it. Then I slowly replaced it with modern JS wherever possible and I found that today I am using jQuery only because Datatables.js depends on it.

It was a nice ride, many thanks to the people that worked and still work on it. Not sure we'll ever see a jQuery 5, but that's life.

jQuery is v4 now, but a lot of sites esp. wordpress still have 1.11 or 1.12 and only uses them to either doing modals(popover), show/hide(display), or ajax(fetch).

Even after migrating to ES modules, jQuery is still somewhat bloated. It is 27 kB (minified + gzipped) [0]. In comparison, Preact is only 4.7 kB [1].

[0]: https://bundlephobia.com/package/jquery@4.0.0

[1]: https://bundlephobia.com/package/preact@10.28.2

  • > Preact is only 4.7 kB

    Is there some outlier place where people using virtual DOM frameworks don't also include 100-200kb of "ecosystem" in addition to the framework?

    I suppose anything is possible, but I've never actually seen it. I have seen jQuery only sites. You get a lot for ~27kB.

    • I use Preact for a very lean build for a front-end that lives in a small embedded MCU flash ROM. Gziped the whole front-end is about 25KB, including SVG images baked-in to the preact gzip file. I'm very careful about the libraries I include and their impact on the overall payload size.

      I had started with a simple front-end that was using jQuery to quickly prototype the device controls, but quickly exceeded my goal of keeping the front-end at under 40KB total gzipped. The problem is needing more than just jQuery, we also needed jQueryUI to help with the front-end, or build out similar complex components ourselves. And as soon as the jQuery code became non-trivial, it was clear that Preact made much more sense to use. Our payload is quite a bit smaller yhan the jQuery prototype was.

  • jQuery does a lot more though, and includes support older browsers.

    • Officially they state they only support 2 latest versions of chrome. But considering their support of IE11, that's actually a lot.