<story><title>Bling – the $ of jQuery without the jQuery</title><url>https://gist.github.com/paulirish/12fb951a8b893a454b32</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ceronman</author><text>Yes, you can re-implement jQuery in 10 lines of code... if you only support 0.1% of the functionality of jQuery.&lt;p&gt;jQuery was a game changer for web client side development. Thousands of work hours have been spent on it. It had a specially important role of dealing with all the inconsistencies between browsers. If you don&amp;#x27;t use all the features, nowadays you can just create a custom build with the stuff you want.&lt;p&gt;If you don&amp;#x27;t need jQuery, maybe because you only care about modern browsers, or you use another library or you don&amp;#x27;t mind a bit of extra boilerplate for DOM manipulation, that&amp;#x27;s perfectly fine. But these kind of posts seem like mockery on the developers of a library that has provided extreme value for thousands for developers over many years.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>inglor</author><text>You are arguing against a strawman - no one is claiming otherwise. All paul_irish wanted to show is that people often use jQuery without realizing that most of what they do is also possible with the current browser APIs. jQuery does a ton more (animation, ajax etc) - the point was not to &amp;quot;rewrite jQuery in 10 lines&amp;quot; (that&amp;#x27;s Zepto)</text></comment>
<story><title>Bling – the $ of jQuery without the jQuery</title><url>https://gist.github.com/paulirish/12fb951a8b893a454b32</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ceronman</author><text>Yes, you can re-implement jQuery in 10 lines of code... if you only support 0.1% of the functionality of jQuery.&lt;p&gt;jQuery was a game changer for web client side development. Thousands of work hours have been spent on it. It had a specially important role of dealing with all the inconsistencies between browsers. If you don&amp;#x27;t use all the features, nowadays you can just create a custom build with the stuff you want.&lt;p&gt;If you don&amp;#x27;t need jQuery, maybe because you only care about modern browsers, or you use another library or you don&amp;#x27;t mind a bit of extra boilerplate for DOM manipulation, that&amp;#x27;s perfectly fine. But these kind of posts seem like mockery on the developers of a library that has provided extreme value for thousands for developers over many years.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>VeejayRampay</author><text>I would agree with your comment, but the author is not claiming to be reimplementing jQuery in 10 lines of code. He&amp;#x27;s merely providing a way to benefit from the syntactic sugar ($) to avoid using the verbose vanilla JS API (document.querySelectorAll) and solve the issue of NodeList not supporting the functionality available on Arrays (forEach, map, etc), which doesn&amp;#x27;t make any sense in the first place.</text></comment>