

JQuery should be part of the browser. - namanaggarwal
https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140621151139-96697375-jquery-should-be-a-part-of-browser?published=t

======
nailer
The article is obviously ridiculous (CDNs handle fetches, DOM APIs do most of
what jQuery does except in-built iteration, jQuery's AJAX is poor, v2 is the
current major version, we use CSS for most animations these days, etc) but:

    
    
        NodeList.prototype.forEach = Array.prototype.forEach;
        var query = document.querySelector.bind(document),
          queryAll = document.querySelectorAll.bind(document)
    

And patching in `classlist.js` for IE9 just to get the basics going out of the
box on modern browsers does suck. And yes, I write big things in vanilla JS.

------
nandhp
If using a CDN, the refresh tax and initial tax should be negligible --
Google's jQuery has a 1-year expiration date; code.jquery.com has an
expiration date in 2037. Browsers shouldn't be re-checking them unless an
explicit "reload" is used.

Yes, there's a constant tax for parsing, etc. But that can be better fixed by
having browsers add general support for caching compiled versions of
JavaScript libraries. This way, even sites that use less famous libraries
(Dojo or AngularJS or whatever) can get the same benefits.

------
jehna1
[http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/](http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/)

------
stephenr
> It is something that has arguably become a part of javascript itself.

No, it hasn't

> Whenever, I am creating even a simple website, I include jQuery to it (even
> if sometime I don't need/use it).

Then you are an idiot.

~~~
rezistik
"Even if I don't use this library I include it, because hey my users probably
want that extra data cost!"

