News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:You might not need jQuery by latj on Thursday January 30, 2014 @02:31PM (#7152824)
I agree with the overall message- you should be thoughtful with all your dependencies. You should only add complexity when it makes sense.

However, the author goes beyond just selector vs. getElementById().

Does the way the author uses XMLHttpRequest work in other browsers the way it works in IE? I honestly dont even remember anymore.

How about the code for fade? I never even knew the details of this feature. And I'm not sure I want to.

Re:You might not need jQuery by nostrademons on Thursday January 30, 2014 @06:19PM (#7154070)
Re:You might not need jQuery by voltagex_ on Thursday January 30, 2014 @06:37PM (#7154164)
For IE9, don't you need IE-specific code for cross domain requests?
Re:You might not need jQuery by nostrademons on Thursday January 30, 2014 @06:59PM (#7154276)
Yeah, you need XDomainRequest for CORS requests in IE8 and 9. IE10 is fully standards-compliant.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2010/05/13/xdoma...

Re:You might not need jQuery by btd on Friday January 31, 2014 @12:15AM (#7155397)
It is very castrated, better to use hidden iframe + window.postMessage for cors in ie8 and ie9.
Re:You might not need jQuery by duncans on Friday January 31, 2014 @05:17AM (#7156066)
I don't think "castrated" is the word you meant :-) Perhaps "constrained" or "restricted"
Re:You might not need jQuery by Dylan16807 on Friday January 31, 2014 @03:36PM (#7159034)
...why not?

"to render impotent or deprive of vitality"

Re:You might not need jQuery by kishor_gurtu on Thursday January 30, 2014 @10:33PM (#7155077)
Funny, because IE invented XHR.
Re:You might not need jQuery by mokkol on Friday January 31, 2014 @06:19AM (#7156194)
For fading, I recommend just adding or removing a class and let css transitions do the job. If you dont mind it not working in IE8 of course
Re:You might not need jQuery by simons on Friday January 31, 2014 @06:43AM (#7156231)
and IE9: http://caniuse.com/css-transitions.

Pedantry aside, your point stands, CSS transitions can use the GPU and degrade gracefully.

Re:You might not need jQuery by Jach on Thursday January 30, 2014 @06:14PM (#7154045)
Considering XMLHttpRequest is what other browsers used before IE caught up, I assume it does work the way you'd expect across modern browsers. I'd have to check the standard and IE8+'s conformance to the standard to be sure. That's what this post is really about for me, reminding that modern browsers follow a standard that allows for getting rid of most of jQuery. Reading it also made me recall a post from 2005 by PHP's creator: http://rajshekhar.net/blog/archives/85-Rasmus-30-second-AJAX... (Note IE uses ActiveXObject.)
Re:You might not need jQuery by annnnd on Friday January 31, 2014 @05:38AM (#7156110)
XMLHttpRequest was first introduced in IE5. I think in retrospect MS regrets its introduction, but that is another discussion entirely.
Re:You might not need jQuery by fish2000 on Friday January 31, 2014 @02:31PM (#7158656)
As I recall, they specifically implemented it in order to facilitate Outlook’s web interface – their collective regret may be tempered by the satisfaction they got from all those high-margin site license sales to which that feature contributed.
Re:You might not need jQuery by billmalarky on Saturday February 01, 2014 @02:04PM (#7162872)
I wouldn't mind hearing a snippet of that discussion. Why would MS regret XMLHttpRequest?
Re:You might not need jQuery by mkr-hn on Sunday February 02, 2014 @07:25AM (#7165779)
Microsoft twiddled its thumbs while the web grew up and around Windows using the technology the company introduced.
Re:You might not need jQuery by billmalarky on Monday February 03, 2014 @03:50PM (#7173374)
That makes complete sense. Never thought of it that way.