https://webpagetest.org/result/190213_XH_63c61dc3d45cb95ec8a...
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/190213_NX_ee1e7ae8fa74557...
It’s not hard to beat jQuery in many cases but they’re looking pretty svelte in comparison:
https://webpagetest.org/result/190213_93_e2da91a07e2b2bc0234...
The biggest complain I read about is javascript downloads being so big nowadays so piling on with jQuery--or anything else--just because frameworks and other libraries are so bloated doesn't make it OK.
If you don’t profile your app, that cool new stack is probably going to be bigger and slower because tools like webpack make it easy to manage tons of code and you won’t notice until you test it on mobile, slow WiFi, etc.
I'm not in the trenches with this stuff though so my numbers may be wrong but... the ~500% number seems pretty off.
I have no idea where you got your "500%" from, but it seems wildly off-mark.
react is 31kb vue is 20kb preact is 4kb
When doing comparisons, don't be disingenuous. Compare like numbers.
It's easy to "win" internet arguments like this rolls eyes.
jQuery already uses many native features when supported, while also working around browser quirks and such. It's less of an issue than in the past, but it hasn't gone away completely; see all the comments/fixes for specific browsers.
> One less dependency, network request and more efficient code is always worth the effort.
Of course not. It's a return-of-investment calculation. The 85k of jQuery isn't all that large, especially considering that websites like Medium and NYC load 2MB of JS, and the overhead of jQuery compared to standard JavaScript is minor.