News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by wmanley on Saturday November 02, 2024 @04:04PM (#42028888)
> Browsers have become so nice to work with, that these days, I get away with just the following two lines of code to simplify DOM manipulation: > > dqs = document.querySelector.bind(document); > dqsA = document.querySelectorAll.bind(document);

Sounds useful and reasonable.

> I usually import the two functions from a module like this: > > import { dqs, dqsA } from '/lib/js/dqs.js';

Utterly absurd. Just copy and paste. It’s only two simple lines, how could it be worth a dependency?

Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by brightball on Saturday November 02, 2024 @04:20PM (#42028977)
Included in multiple places?
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by 0xCMP on Saturday November 02, 2024 @04:26PM (#42029011)
modern browsers support the import syntax natively, so it really shouldn't be a lot of overhead to import it.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by notpushkin on Sunday November 03, 2024 @12:35AM (#42031194)
The overhead here would be the need to make another request just for these two functions.

On the other hand, with bundling though it’s totally fine to have a module just for these two helpers. (Even better if it can be inlined, but I haven’t seen anything supporting this since Prepack, which is still POC I think.)

Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by mg on Sunday November 03, 2024 @06:03AM (#42032373)
AFAIK modern HTTP versions like HTTP/3 can request multiple files in a single network packet. So it is basically free to do "another request". As the data request goes out and the data comes in in packets with other "requests".
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by theandrewbailey on Sunday November 03, 2024 @07:51AM (#42032766)
A network request isn't free, only less costly than it used to be. Even with HTTP 3, your JS execution is stalled for however long the RTT is back to the server. That could be 500+ ms if its on the side of the world and doesn't have a CDN.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by mg on Sunday November 03, 2024 @10:08AM (#42033463)
Depends on the import tree. The way I understand it, this:

    import { x } from '/a.js';
    import { y } from '/b.js';
Does not take longer than this:

    import { x } from '/a.js';
Because the message to the server "Give me b.js" goes out in the same network packet as "Give me a.js" and the data of b.js comes back in the same packet(s) as the data of a.js.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by Cyphase on Saturday November 02, 2024 @05:39PM (#42029403)
It looks like it's intended to be copied and pasted into your codebase, not be an external dependency.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by 0x457 on Saturday November 02, 2024 @05:52PM (#42029462)
I guess it's meant to be processed by some bundler later.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by kfajdsl on Saturday November 02, 2024 @06:20PM (#42029623)
/lib/js/dq.js is part of their codebase.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by Kiro on Saturday November 02, 2024 @07:05PM (#42029891)
Bizarre comment. Why would you copypaste this into every file when you can do it once and import it? What's the problem exactly?
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by croes on Saturday November 02, 2024 @11:44PM (#42031017)
Left-pad anyone?
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by sadeshmukh on Sunday November 03, 2024 @01:10AM (#42031426)
It's in their codebase.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by Kiro on Sunday November 03, 2024 @03:06AM (#42031778)
That's an external dependency. You don't install anything here. It's no different than making any other module you reuse in multiple places.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by eastbound on Sunday November 03, 2024 @06:50AM (#42032529)
Because using a JS module will set back your 30-minutes project by an entire day.

Of course you are supposed to master which of the es/interop/amd/require incantation you are supposed to use. I wish Typescript would have mandated one style and one style of JS module only!!

And I’ve never succeeded to find a good guidelines on which kind of JS module I should use. Any advice on what is a very easy and stable and worth-to-learn technique to master imports in 2024?

Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by genuinelydang on Sunday November 03, 2024 @08:31AM (#42032967)
What? If you don’t have external dependencies, just remove your bundler/transpiler and rely on browsers to import your code.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by afavour on Sunday November 03, 2024 @08:37AM (#42032995)
Your rant is several years out of date. You can use ES imports natively in Node and the browser. I have been very happy doing so.

Besides, if you’re working with a codebase of non-zero complexity you need imports/require/whatever anyway.

Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by jazzypants on Sunday November 03, 2024 @09:35AM (#42033276)
Use ESM. It's built into the browser. CJS is legacy. Every major JS runtime has module interop built in now.

Modules aren't hard anymore.

Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by nsonha on Sunday November 03, 2024 @09:13PM (#42037791)
> Because using (a JS) module will set back your 30-minutes project by an entire day

May be learn to do the basic of YOUR JOB for once, some "software engineer".

Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by WorldMaker on Monday November 04, 2024 @02:17PM (#42045063)
In 2024 the one and only answer is finally just ESM.

If you need to support the browser use `<script type="module">`. That works natively in every current browser today. You may need an "importmap" for more easily handling dependencies. You may need to spot build with something like esbuild or rollup or rolldown for some of your dependencies if they were written in CJS or to add missing things a browser needs like ".js" file extensions.

If you need to support Node use the package.json incantation `"type": "module"` and the `"exports"` key instead of `"main"` and get sane modern defaults in all LTS supported versions of Node (and a few past versions now, too). Most imports will "just work", your module files will be sensibly named ".js". If you publish a library, most people can consume it, even if some of them (CJS stalwarts/people trapped in legacy swamps) complain about having to work with Promises some of the time.

If you need to support Deno or Bun, they already have sane defaults and their documentation guides you pretty well, including Typescript setup.

> I wish Typescript would have mandated one style and one style of JS module only!!

The good news it that they kind of did: the import/export syntax that Typescript has made familiar since around TS 1.0/1.5 is "surprise" ESM syntax. Typescript has been preparing developers into using it all along. You can stop cross-compiling the ESM you've already become used to writing to older, worse formats like CJS and AMD, you can let Typescript do a lot less work on your behalf and just "strip types" more than "transpile".

Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by mrweasel on Sunday November 03, 2024 @10:44AM (#42033685)
Every file? You have one .js file per project, if you're like me. So just throwing those two lines in the top and never having to worry about it ever again seems like a nice option.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by NoahKAndrews on Sunday November 03, 2024 @06:57PM (#42037155)
How big are your projects? It's very strange to me that you would want to have just a single JS file per project. Even if you want to avoid bundlers, ES modules make it easy to import code from other files.
Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by mrweasel on Monday November 04, 2024 @03:39AM (#42039675)
> How big are your projects?

In terms of Javascript, as little as I can possibly get away with. The web stuff that I do is mostly CRUD type apps, which can be done entirely server side. The Javascript is only where it make the user experience better, so basic form help or to do a modal, things like that.

Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by niutech on Friday November 15, 2024 @04:04AM (#42145129)
Importing an ES module without a bundler involves making a HTTP request, which costs time.

Better KISS and fit all of JS in a single script.

Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by mg on Friday November 15, 2024 @05:23AM (#42145551)

    which costs time
No sure this holds true anymore.

When you go to a site like reddit.com which uses HTTP/2, you see a gazillion of requests for JS files, many starting at the same time and ending at the same time.

I think that is because newer HTTP versions can put multiple requests in the same data packet. And even HTTP/3 is now supported by over 90% of browsers.

Re:Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern bro... by fragmede on Saturday November 02, 2024 @08:55PM (#42030415)
Because if it ever needs to change, you're in for a world of hurt. Because useful stuff like that is worth sharing elsewhere. It starts with 2 lines, but then theres another useful function you'd like in another file. So you just copy and paste those two lines. But then you want that in a third file. Pretty soon you have this almost-library you're carrying around you've spread across a bunch of files, and now what started with two simple lines is now a mountain of tech debt.

Maybe you'll never write enough JavaScript to have additional utility functions. You'll probably never need to modify those two lines. But copying and pasting like that makes for quite the code smell. Because if you're copying and pasting that, the question that someone may never actually verbalize to you is what else in the code is copy and pasting instead of being turned into a shared function in a libray?