> Surely that's their entire point? They provide the link as evidence that.

I'm not following your point. The point of YMNNJ is that you can use their examples to quickly replace bits of jQuery code. I've identified that a few of their examples (possibly more) are not equivalent replacements -- demonstrating that jQuery is indeed needed.

Your second quote doesn't come from me. It's misleading the way you quoted it in response to my post.

> I'm not following your point. The point of YMNNJ is that you can use their examples to quickly replace bits of jQuery code.

That doesn't mean that's how the person you responded to uses it.

> Your second quote doesn't come from me.

The second quote comes from the comment you responded to, I'm pointing out that its author specifically used YMNNJ to demonstrate that not using jquery can be significantly less convenient and ergonomic than using it.

You could be right... but you're definitely the first person I've seen suggest this. It would be a Sixth Sense twist, given the domain name.

youprobablystillwantjquery.com is still available at the time of this writing.

I took masklinn's comment to mean that your point in sharing the youmightnotneedjquery.com was to show evidence of problems using vanilla JS instead of jQuery, not that that's the point of the site existing.

The site has plenty of examples of vanilla requiring writing multiple lines compared to one jQuery line, which I took to be your point regarding "ergonomics." EB66 seems more focused on a subtler point regarding the site, that their vanilla examples don't do everything the jQuery version does.

I like your reading better than my own. I've re-read a few times and it's still written in an ambiguous way, so I don't feel completely silly.