and slowing down your website

well that's the trade-off, isn't it? unless my app is speed-heavy, i'm not gonna spend the extra man-hours needed (that jquery saves me) so that website runs negligibly faster.

good luck ranking in google and explaining your self to your md when your major publishing site takes 20 seconds to load I wont mention any names but I know of two cases of this.

The jQuery library is 45k, half that if gzipped. If it's taking 20 seconds to load, your birds are too slow.[1]

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149

if it takes 20 seconds to load, you have bigger problems than jquery.

From experience where there is jquery there is normally at least a dozen other js files cut n pasted at random along with a similar number of css files with no thought to efficiency - hell most sites I se they can't even optimised the godamm images using Photoshop properly.

"JQuery is bad because some people who use it do unrelated things wrong"? Should I stop driving because some other people who use cars happen to cheat on their taxes?

jQuery is usually cached in your browser because of how common it is. From what I understand, the slowing is negligible. Part of a developer's role is to mitigate site performance with the speed of process. Inlining of critical CSS is one way to balance out initial page load, for example.

This is part myth. The chances your site has the same version of jQuery that the visitor's browser cache is are pretty low. iirc, someone once said it was less than 5%.

most of the time, it's less than 1% http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2013/03/18/http-archive-jqu...