Cash: An absurdly small jQuery alternative for modern browsers

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]