diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'content/posts/2022-09-11-thoughts-on-jquery.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | content/posts/2022-09-11-thoughts-on-jquery.md | 79 |
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." |