Comment by petcat
19 hours ago
I prefer the terseness of jQuery's API and things like chaining dom operations with the fluent API. I don't like the native DOM API. Too verbose
(I still read and review code)
19 hours ago
I prefer the terseness of jQuery's API and things like chaining dom operations with the fluent API. I don't like the native DOM API. Too verbose
(I still read and review code)
I still think the only reason to use jQuery is if you need IE11 support.
Otherwise, it's really simple to do all the things you mentioned without the complexity/heaviness of jQuery. Something like this:
``` const $ = s => { const r = {}; const els = [...document.querySelectorAll(s)]; r.text = t => (els.forEach(e => e.textContent = t), r); r.on = (ev, fn) => (els.forEach(e => e.addEventListener(ev, fn)), r); // ... return r; }; ```
jQuery is 30kB, there's not a lot of heaviness. In a world of React, Vue, htmx and what have you, 30kB is nothing.
If you like the syntax and functionality of jQuery, or if you're just use to it now, there's very little reason to no use it, and speed and size certainly isn't a reason. 15 years ago, maybe, but not in 2026.
Right, I can cobble together my own worse version of jQuery if I wanted to.
Or I can just use jQuery.
Does anyone actually need IE11 support in 2026? It was released 13 years ago.
Makes sense to me. Their motto was "Write less, do more", i.e. its conciseness was a major selling point, but that seems to have been forgotten now that its other selling points have been rendered obsolete.
I recall scripts ending up as little as one-third the size of vanilla JS, when rewritten using jQuery (where the website was otherwise using jQuery anyway).