Comments on: jQuery vs. pure JavaScript http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2010/01/08/jquery-vs-pure-javascript/ about web development Fri, 03 Feb 2012 22:35:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Charlie http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2010/01/08/jquery-vs-pure-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-14390 Charlie Wed, 03 Aug 2011 21:46:06 +0000 http://www.stoimen.com/blog/?p=848#comment-14390 I think jQuery is many times better to use than javascript which is quiet frankly a badly written programming language jQuery can aid a lot of web designers without any solid programming background and that's one of the reason it is used so widely I think jQuery is many times better to use than javascript which is quiet frankly a badly written programming language jQuery can aid a lot of web designers without any solid programming background and that’s one of the reason it is used so widely

]]> By: PhoenixAlly http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2010/01/08/jquery-vs-pure-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-14247 PhoenixAlly Sun, 10 Apr 2011 09:29:16 +0000 http://www.stoimen.com/blog/?p=848#comment-14247 I have not used jquery and am still developing web pages (maybe I'm just outdated) whose major functionality is operational even with javascript turned off. And example would be an faq that has answers that open and close when the question is clicked. The questions are in the open state but I use javascript to close them all when the page is loaded. If you had javascript turned off then all the answers would be expanded. I have been writing javascript for approximately 15 years so I've gotten pretty good at it. I have my own libraries but I am considering looking into jquery. I have seen web pages using jquery that are slow and when I view the source it is a huge mess. I suspect that whoever wrote it used nothing but tools and libraries with limited knowledge of how everything works. If you really want tidy fast pages I don't think there's an alternative to knowing what everything does even if you choose tools to make the job easier. I have not used jquery and am still developing web pages (maybe I’m just outdated) whose major functionality is operational even with javascript turned off.

And example would be an faq that has answers that open and close when the question is clicked. The questions are in the open state but I use javascript to close them all when the page is loaded. If you had javascript turned off then all the answers would be expanded.

I have been writing javascript for approximately 15 years so I’ve gotten pretty good at it. I have my own libraries but I am considering looking into jquery.

I have seen web pages using jquery that are slow and when I view the source it is a huge mess. I suspect that whoever wrote it used nothing but tools and libraries with limited knowledge of how everything works.

If you really want tidy fast pages I don’t think there’s an alternative to knowing what everything does even if you choose tools to make the job easier.

]]> By: Stoimen http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2010/01/08/jquery-vs-pure-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-14144 Stoimen Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:47:35 +0000 http://www.stoimen.com/blog/?p=848#comment-14144 @amila - believe me I've tried :) but here it doesn't matter how fast it is loaded by the browser (whatever minified or not). However when the browser's JS engine tries to parse and execute the code than it really matters how "large" it is! @amila – believe me I’ve tried :) but here it doesn’t matter how fast it is loaded by the browser (whatever minified or not). However when the browser’s JS engine tries to parse and execute the code than it really matters how “large” it is!

]]> By: amila http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2010/01/08/jquery-vs-pure-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-14143 amila Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:45:31 +0000 http://www.stoimen.com/blog/?p=848#comment-14143 try with minified versions of jquery and feel free to check how fast it works. it's awsome try with minified versions of jquery and feel free to check how fast it works.

it’s awsome

]]> By: Steve http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2010/01/08/jquery-vs-pure-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-14121 Steve Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:23:35 +0000 http://www.stoimen.com/blog/?p=848#comment-14121 If you are using jQuery on the "main" pages of your site/app, then go ahead and include it on all pages since it will be cached in the user's browser anyway. If you are a public site, then link to Google's CDN version of jQuery, if not be sure to set a far future expires date. If you are using jQuery on the “main” pages of your site/app, then go ahead and include it on all pages since it will be cached in the user’s browser anyway. If you are a public site, then link to Google’s CDN version of jQuery, if not be sure to set a far future expires date.

]]> By: Stoimen http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2010/01/08/jquery-vs-pure-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-12825 Stoimen Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:33:12 +0000 http://www.stoimen.com/blog/?p=848#comment-12825 I agree! It's better to use jQuery when the task you want to do is rather difficult and the maintanence of the code will be easier! I agree! It’s better to use jQuery when the task you want to do is rather difficult and the maintanence of the code will be easier!

]]> By: Yogen http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2010/01/08/jquery-vs-pure-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-12824 Yogen Tue, 13 Apr 2010 04:30:02 +0000 http://www.stoimen.com/blog/?p=848#comment-12824 Well, at some places it's good to use Jquery, for example, we are using it for sorting at client side. Now we don't need to send a request to server and wait for the response. However, one question, I've, where I feel, Jquery shuould be a bit slower. For every event a search has to be made through the entire DOM, to find the places, where the event is registered. With pure JavaScript this is not the case. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Well, at some places it’s good to use Jquery, for example, we are using it for sorting at client side. Now we don’t need to send a request to server and wait for the response.

However, one question, I’ve, where I feel, Jquery shuould be a bit slower. For every event a search has to be made through the entire DOM, to find the places, where the event is registered.

With pure JavaScript this is not the case.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

]]> By: Stoimen http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2010/01/08/jquery-vs-pure-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-12514 Stoimen Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:23:34 +0000 http://www.stoimen.com/blog/?p=848#comment-12514 Second or two? That's too much for a website it must load the entire site for a second, not only the javascript framework. Second or two? That’s too much for a website it must load the entire site for a second, not only the javascript framework.

]]> By: rozi http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2010/01/08/jquery-vs-pure-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-12513 rozi Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:24:06 +0000 http://www.stoimen.com/blog/?p=848#comment-12513 My answer is yes.Yes, just go on with JQuery. Although I'm using Mootool in my new project, http://quickmessageapp.com, or whatever javascript framework, *It* will simplify your job. Just imagine, how big javascript framework and how fast internet connection nowdays? 24-68 KB just a second or two on todays broadband. Just my two cents :) My answer is yes.Yes, just go on with JQuery. Although I’m using Mootool in my new project, http://quickmessageapp.com, or whatever javascript framework, *It* will simplify your job.

Just imagine, how big javascript framework and how fast internet connection nowdays? 24-68 KB just a second or two on todays broadband.

Just my two cents :)

]]> By: Stoimen http://www.stoimen.com/blog/2010/01/08/jquery-vs-pure-javascript/comment-page-1/#comment-12351 Stoimen Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:51:06 +0000 http://www.stoimen.com/blog/?p=848#comment-12351 Hi John, OK if you'd like to use effects it's better to include the library. However I know that jQuery is, but the question is not what's the difference between jQuery and JavaScript, this is nonsense, but whether you need all the functionality given by jQuery just for a simple effect. Another thing I won't agree is that the code will be cached. If you code a page with the presumption in mind that everything is cached before "that page is loaded" sooner or later you'd know that not everybody's using cache enabled browser, gzip or whatever good thing that web developers would like to be enabled. It's not bad if you start developing with optimization in mind. greetings, stoimen Hi John,

OK if you’d like to use effects it’s better to include the library. However I know that jQuery is, but the question is not what’s the difference between jQuery and JavaScript, this is nonsense, but whether you need all the functionality given by jQuery just for a simple effect.

Another thing I won’t agree is that the code will be cached. If you code a page with the presumption in mind that everything is cached before “that page is loaded” sooner or later you’d know that not everybody’s using cache enabled browser, gzip or whatever good thing that web developers would like to be enabled. It’s not bad if you start developing with optimization in mind.

greetings,
stoimen

]]>