jQuery v4.0 Beta

Re:jQuery v4.0 Beta by Finbarr on Tuesday February 06, 2024 @10:48PM (#39284258)

This is incredible and such a great ad for jQuery. It's almost as if the creator(s) built that site ironically. So many examples are way clearer and easier in jQuery, like this one:

  JQUERY:
  $(el).toggle();

  IE8+:
  function toggle(el) {
    if (el.style.display == 'none') {
      el.style.display = '';
    } else {
      el.style.display = 'none';
    }
  }

Gotta love that "modern" triple attribute repetition.

From: https://youmightnotneedjquery.com/#toggle

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:jQuery v4.0 Beta by extra88 on Wednesday February 07, 2024 @12:01AM (#39284689)

A more modern solution would be to use classList.toggle() or toggleAttribute(hidden).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:jQuery v4.0 Beta by 1123581321 on Tuesday February 06, 2024 @11:43PM (#39284575)

Toggle was a bit of a pitfall because the developer had to keep track of all the possible states prior to that line. It's easy to drop in as a function when needed in simple scripting (expanding faq sections, etc.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:jQuery v4.0 Beta by mschuster91 on Wednesday February 07, 2024 @02:55AM (#39285766)

> Gotta love that "modern" triple attribute repetition.

You can golf it down a bit:

    el.style.display=el.style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none';

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:jQuery v4.0 Beta by anakaine on Wednesday February 07, 2024 @03:54AM (#39286140)

Even though I can appreciate the elegance of your solution, I'd prefer the former for clarity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:jQuery v4.0 Beta by OJFord on Wednesday February 07, 2024 @09:17AM (#39288821)

Surely

    el.style.display = el.style.display ? 'none' : ''

(after toggling we've already obliterated any possible third value for it anyway, doesn't seem significant)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:jQuery v4.0 Beta by Finbarr on Wednesday February 07, 2024 @11:04AM (#39290176)

Of course. Because that's infinitely better than:

  $(el).toggle();

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:jQuery v4.0 Beta by frereubu on Wednesday February 07, 2024 @03:37AM (#39286034)

IE8 is a bit of a straw man. We've dropped IE entirely when testing unless there's significant (1%+) usage for particular clients, but even the NHS in the UK has dropped IE11.

Edit: https://caniuse.com/?search=classlist.toggle and click Usage Relative.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:jQuery v4.0 Beta by fwip on Wednesday February 07, 2024 @11:53AM (#39290877)

Plus, the jQuery example also accepts any selector for `el`, including ones that select multiple elements.

The `toggle(el)` function only accepts a single element that you've already selected (e.g: via `document.getElementById("foo")`). You'd need to at least add a call to `querySelectorAll(...).foreach(toggle)`, if you wanted to preserve that piece functionality (which you admittedly don't always want).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:jQuery v4.0 Beta by piaste on Friday February 09, 2024 @04:16AM (#39313000)

> It's almost as if the creator(s) built that site ironically.

No, the site's advice is simply more narrow and fine-grained than a blunt 'never use jquery'. From the front page:

> jQuery and its cousins are great, and by all means use them if it makes it easier to develop your application.

> If you're developing a library on the other hand, please take a moment to consider if you actually need jQuery as a dependency. Maybe you can include a few lines of utility code, and forgo the requirement.

This seems eminently reasonable to me. For a website, adding a jquery dependency costs little and you get much nicer, more maintainable code.

But for a library, every transitive dependency introduces the possibility of future version conflicts for applications that depend on it. And at the same time, library code shouldn't need to change and grow nearly as much as application code.

So library authors should strongly consider forsaking mere convenience for the sake of reducing dependency baggage. This isn't even JS-specific advice, it applies to most ecosystems.

[ Parent | on HN ]