rename jqueries to thoughts-on-jquery

1 files changed, 79 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/content/posts/2022-09-11-thoughts-on-jquery.md b/content/posts/2022-09-11-thoughts-on-jquery.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1169aa7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/posts/2022-09-11-thoughts-on-jquery.md
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+slug: thoughts-on-jquery
+title: "Thoughts on jQuery"
+date: "2022-09-11T07:23:10-04:00"
+draft: true
+tables:
+  sizes:
+    # table columns (required)
+    cols:
+      - id: "build"
+        name: "Build"
+        tip: "jQuery build."
+      - id: "minified_size"
+        name: "Minified"
+        tip: "Build size, minified, in kilobytes."
+        align: "right"
+      - id: "compressed_size"
+        name: "Compressed"
+        tip: "Build size, minified and compressed, in kilobytes."
+        align: "right"
+
+    # table rows (required)
+    rows:
+      - build: "jQuery 3.6.1 Full"
+        minified_size: "90 kB"
+        compressed_size: "30 kB"
+      - build: "jQuery 3.6.1 Slim"
+        minified_size: "73 kB"
+        compressed_size: "25 kB"
+---
+Several of my coworkers do not like [jQuery][].  Some common arguments
+against it are:
+
+1. Modern [DOM][] APIs and cross-browser compatibility are now good
+   enough that [you don't need jQuery][not needed].
+2. [jQuery][] is bloated.
+3. [jQuery][] is the source of security problems.
+
+My personal opinion is a bit more nuanced.  I agree that [jQuery][]
+isn't *strictly necessary* for new web applications and that the modern
+[DOM][] API is usually sufficient.
+
+[If it ain't broke, don't fix it][fix].  It's often easier to maintain
+[jQuery][] in an existing web application than to remove or replace it.
+
+Consistency is important for a team of developers working on multiple
+web applications.  Relying on consistent dependencies, idioms, and
+formatting between disparate web applications is often more important
+than using the latest technique or technology, because consistency
+reduces the [cognitive load][] for the entire team.
+
+Even as someone who [cares about page size][shrinkage] and [literally
+measures JavaScript size by byte][js-byte-size], I don't find the
+argument that [jQuery][] is bloated particularly compelling.  The sizes
+of [jQuery 3.6.1][] are as follows:
+
+{{< table "sizes" >}}
+
+At these sizes jQuery is relatively small compared to a single bitmap
+image
+
+[jquery]: https://jquery.com/
+  "jQuery"
+[not needed]: https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/
+  "You might not need jQuery."
+[dom]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Object_Model
+  "Document Object Model"
+[fix]: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/if+it+ain%27t+broke%2c+don%27t+fix+it
+  "If something is performing or functioning well enough, there's no need to change or interfere with it as you may introduce new problems as a result."
+[cognitive load]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_load
+  "Measure of perceived mental effort."
+[jquery 3.6.1]: https://blog.jquery.com/2022/08/26/jquery-3-6-1-maintenance-release/
+  "jQuery 3.6.1, the current version of jQuery as of this writing."
+[shrinkage]: {{< relref "posts/2022-01-28-media-shrinkage.md" >}}
+  "Post about compressing media assets and enabling compression in Apache."
+[js-byte-size]: https://git.pablotron.org/sites/pablotron.org/plain/themes/hugo-pt2021/assets/script.js
+  "Comment about byte count from unminified JavaScript for this site."
+[javascript]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript
+  "JavaScript programming language."