Who still regularly uses jQuery?

Lots of us are still using it for one reason or another. How about you? What's your story?

Comments

[Sandeep Balachandran]

[Vince Ramces Oliveros]

One word. "Legacy"

jQuery shines the medieval era of web development.

[Fernando Crozetta]

medieval era of the web development.

This is the most accurate way to describe those times.

[dataPixy 🧚‍♂️]

last time I used it & d3.js 🤣🤣🤣

RandomFractals / droneStrikes

Data viz of US drone strikes in the Middle East

droneStrikes

Spatial Data Viz of U.S. drone strikes in the Middle East

dronehits.herokuapp.com/

Graph View

Data View

View on GitHub

[Anurag Hazra]

Please also add #jokes tag

[dataPixy 🧚‍♂️]

👎👎👎

[Holy-Elie Scaïde]

Not regularly, but I have use jQuery. Mainly where I have a simple web app (A few pages without much logic in them, just showing some content). Going with React would be too much a hassle (You have to maintain consistency within the global state). And the few times I had to work on a Wordpress site (I guess they are why jQuery still have this usage)

[Willane Paiva]

I use it on daily basis, cause of my current job.

[Amanda Iaria]

The past 6 months I've been not been using it when I'm not coding in a framework. A lot of things that I thought would be easier aren't that bad in es6.

Though $(selector) will always be nice ... I really don't like the document.querySelectorAll(blah).forEach((eachselector) = { so much for something small });

blah

[merlijn van lent]

To be honest, I have no idea if this is an good idea but...

window.$$ = (selector) => {return document.querySelectorAll(selector);};

Does save a lot of keystrokes on an daily basis and because of the double $ most people would at least think of jQuery and thus that it is some sort of selector.

[Aimeri Baddouh]

I saw a talk by Wes Bos at JAMstack conf where he did exactly this. Actually he implemented $ for querySelector and $$ for querySelectorAll

I think this is a pretty neat trick, but there's a part of me that always wants to pause and analyze whether it is strictly necessary to expand on the window object needlessly. Do you have any opinions on setting this as a part of the window object vs using a separate function to do this?

[Daniel Lo Nigro]

You can always just make your own function called $ :)

[Paweł Kowalski]

This is how my utility looks like for that:

const $ = (s, p = document) => {
  if(/object HTML.*Element/.test(s.toString())) {
    throw new Error('[utils/dom/$] Passed dom element instead of selector (string).');
  }

  return Array.from(p.querySelectorAll(s))
};

export default $;

I even export it as $ because i got so used to it ;-)))

I should note that it always returns an array, so no matter if it returns one element or multiple, you can still have one code to iterate matching elements. And if you need only one because you know there will be only one, [0] saves the day, just like in jquery unwrapping method.

[Maximillian Heth]

That's pretty nifty!

I made a slight adjustment that will save you the trouble of having to add [0] to the array if there's really only one instance of that selector.

const $ = (selector, context = document) => {

  if(/object HTML.*Element/.test(selector.toString())) {

    throw new Error('[utils/dom/$] Passed dom element instead of selector (string).');

  }

  if (context.querySelectorAll(selector).length > 0) {

    return [...context.querySelectorAll(selector)];

  } else {

    return context.querySelector(selector);

  }

};

[Paweł Kowalski]

I had it in previous version, but i value having returned array much more than this. Because i often map, i can safely map over array of one element, but it would throw if i dont have it inside the array. Im huge advocate of that.

[Vicente G. Reyes]

What's jQuery?