

JQuery 1.5.1 released, includes full IE 9 support - jonknee
http://blog.jquery.com/2011/02/24/jquery-151-released/

======
arkitaip
I am incredibly thankful that jQuery exists. The other day I had to code some
basic javascript in a environment where embedding jQuery wasn't an option (too
much overhead) - boy what a PITA. Basic stuff like writing selectors took
forever and I had to resolve to "low level" coding. What would have taken a
couple of seconds in jQuery took several hours of research, and trial and
error. I planned on adding a basic fading/sliding effect - forget about it.
Takes to much time in ordinary javascript.

So thanks John Resig and the rest of the jQuery dev team for making us web dev
guys more productive and actually making JavaScript fun.

~~~
dualogy
jQuery too much overhead? What kind of environment was that?

~~~
bzbarsky
Pretty much any environment where you care about performance of your code,
actually. A lot of the simple-looking jquery stuff is implemented with tons of
indirection, branching, etc.

Just compare the work a browser has to do for something like:

    
    
      document.getElementById("foo").setAttribute("bar", "baz");
    

to the work needed for the jquery equivalent...

Now the good thing is that most consumers of jquery don't care about
performance of their code (in that they're doing small enough amounts of stuff
it doesn't matter much).

~~~
rorrr
Out of curiousity I tested that particular statement, and you're right.
Compared to

    
    
        $('#foo').attr('bar', 'baz');
    

your code is

30 times faster in Chrome 9

81 times faster in Firefox 3.6

~~~
ams6110
In most cases, though, using jquery to do something like adding a class, or
setting a value, is still plenty fast enough. We're talking about code that
runs in the browser, where things move on human timescales. Don't optimize
prematurely.

~~~
bzbarsky
The problems start when you add a class to 10,000 elements on the page. And
yes, I've seen pages doing this with jquery where the jquery overhead was what
made the difference between a 20ms operation (not user-perceptible) and a 1s
operation (very much user-perceptible).

------
jcr
I really do realize computer systems and software are primarily designed for
normal people rather than the disabled. I also understand the vastly
competitive world of web development and the advantages of having a cool
looking, feature rich site.

None the less, I take offense to the part of jquery-ui that is hijacking the
web browser UI. It is remapping keys and pointer usage (text selection). This
should have never been allowed in the W3C and EMACscript (javascript)
standards. Hijacking the browser UI of a disabled person is like kicking the
crutches out from under someone just to see them fall and because you think it
will make you look cool to others.

Web developers _never_ know how a user-agent is configured and _never_ know
the needs of the person using the web browser. Changing how the UI normally
works really does hurt, confuse and infuriate many people, and probably more
than just the disabled folks.

Sure, disabled people are a very small part of the population, and they
typically are not the rich consumers buying the latest and greatest. They may
not be your target market, your real customer concern, but excluding them with
browser hijacking is unnecessary, and in some ways unfair.

At least please think over...

~~~
jeresig
I'm not really sure what you're responding to, specifically. You do realize
that jQuery UI (and jQuery Mobile) are both ARIA compliant, right? This means
that it's actually far easier to use these UIs then you might expect.

ARIA is very cool stuff - definitely recommend that you check it out!
<http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/>

~~~
jcr
John, it might be a day or four for me to type them up, but I mail you the
test cases, configs, code and details where jquery-ui breaks when it hijacks
the UI of the browser. I've tracked the problem to a faulty assumption, namely
assuming the user-agent doesn't already have any existing user specified key
bindings defined for special needs access. The conflict breaks all key
bindings, including the defaults.

~~~
ez77
_but I mail you the test cases, configs, code and details where jquery-ui
breaks when it hijacks the UI of the browser_

This technical part is the most relevant as a public comment/link in HN, in my
opinion.

------
professortodd
I know that the javascript purists don't like jquery, but I'm a big fan.

~~~
jherdman
Really? Why ever not? What do they prefer?

~~~
r00fus
Something lighter than 238kb. I remember when jquery first came out, and ExtJS
was around that size (actually a bit larger) and one of the big popularity
factors of jQuery was a much smaller library size.

Also some places like Apple have their own internal js frameworks and want
folks who know and can code bare-metal js.

~~~
jeresig
jQuery is not 238KB in any form that you would ship to a user. It is a 29KB
minified and gzipped - which is a world of difference and perfectly acceptable
for mobile use (likely smaller than most images you'll be using on your site,
for example).

~~~
TNO
Of course if you have IE6, gzip can be a problem.

~~~
Strom
If you have IE6, then gzip is the least of your problems.

~~~
TNO
Ah yes, blame the user. That's always the best policy.

~~~
ashconnor
But he's blaming the browser.

