Thread: juery equivalent to this function

Originally Posted by felgall

(although these days its hard to find a situation where the saving would be that much).

Or any days really, which is part of why I'm so shocked that anyone actually bothers TRYING to use it for much of anything.

This might be an odd question but what triggers those show/hide functions? If it's a clickable event then MAYBE it should be JS (there are ways around that now) but if it's a hover state, my question would be why even have JavaScript involved? Even with JavaScript involved I'd be swapping classes not directly accessing style, since who knows if that style is even applicable in all the different media targets and / or media queries a site might have.

Good rule of thumb? If you are using Element.style in your JavaScript, in all but the rarest of corner cases you are doing something wrong.

But I'd have to see what is trying to call those to weight in more.

Though for completeness sake the jQuery equivalent SHOULD be:

Code:

function show(o){
  $('#' + o).css('display', 'block');
}
function hide(o){
  $('#' + o).css('display', 'none');
}

I'm guessing slightly though -- my experience with jQ was just long enough to go "what is this needlessly agonizingly cryptic hard to follow rubbish?!?" before moving it to the top of my naughty list where it sat for over six years, until just a couple years ago a new upstart called "bootstrap" went and outdid it on the herpaderp scale.

Originally Posted by Lesshardtofind

Why bother with 3 different ways to query something when jQuery gives you the ability to do it with one simple system. Also the chaining is very useful. If you want to use the same type of strength

Which methinks means we hast a different definition of the words "simple", "useful" and "strength".

jQuery is needlessly cryptic, pointlessly bloated, and just more crap to learn which is why most people using it don't seem to know enough JavaScript, HTML or CSS to even be making websites in the first blasted place. It sat at the top of my "are people REALLY this stupid" list for as long as it did for that alone.

Much less "chaining" just results in long hard to follow lines of "wait, just what the *** are we operating on again?". That in most cases it's people using JS to do CSS' job only adds insult to injury on that.

It makes people write more code, that relies on more code, often to do things that have no business being coded... so where's this ALLEGED simple, useful and strength coming from?!?

EVERYTHING I've ever seen done with jQuery falls into one of three categories:

1) something that would be simpler, easier to follow, or less code without jQuery, NOT even counting the size of the framework against the result.

2) Stuff that's CSS' job.

3) Things that have ZERO blasted business on websites in the first place!

Originally Posted by Lesshardtofind

Either way this isn't much of a concern for our Apps at work because we've moved on to react so direct dom manipulation has become a bit of bad practice

I've been dealing with a few things built with react.js, and everything I've dealt with leaves me wanting to punch someone in the face! It reeks so badly of "HTML, what's that?", "DOM, what's that do?" and "CSS, what's that do?" that the bloated idiotic MESSES it vomits up are little more than telling visitors or users of anything built with it to go **** themselves from an accessibility or usability standpoint; much less a speed, efficiency or simplicity of maintenance standpoint.

Needlessly pointlessly convoluted rubbish that blatantly shows whoever created it has no business making websites or applications. Much like jQuery I stand in wonder of how anyone could delude themselves into seeing any sort of advantage to that nonsense.

Though to be fair, I say the same thing about pretty much all frameworks as to me they universally reek of the folks using them not understanding HTML, CSS, JS or accessibility enough to even have an informed opinion on the topic!

There's a joke I usually make, but I'm unsure how these forums feel about making fun of faith or pseudo-science quackery.

Originally Posted by Lesshardtofind

but I don't see anything wrong with people using jQuery for the convenience.

Yeah, I do believe we have a different definition of "convenience" as well. I dunno, maybe I've just watched too many projects I used to support flush themselves down the toilet with it. (yes SMF, I'm looking at you!)

Originally Posted by Lesshardtofind

If including jQuery in your website/mobile application is the difference between good and bad load time you are already doing something else incredibly wrong.

Like using jQuery -- though more likely it's a nasty case of "JavaScript for NOTHING!"

JS for nothing and your scripts for free... that ain't workin', that's not how you do it. Lemme tell ya, these guys ARE dumb. Maybe pop the enter key off your little laptop, maybe break the shift key with your thumb. We got to install some PHP now, custom CMS, delivereeeeeeey. We got to backup these, sql tables. We got to backup our PHPeeeeee....

I want my, I want my, I want my PHP.