javascript v jQuery frameworks

[osgood_]

I don't want to stir up a hornets nest here but if devs wants to make some sensible contibutions giving their opinions, without getting personal, please do so.

Materialise.css front end framework now uses pure javascript, rather than dependency on jQuery.

If you compare the current versions of the jQuery min js file and the Materiaise min js - jQuery is 90kb and Materialise is 180kb  the unminified files are 274kb and 369kb respectively.

My real question is this. I can understand a developer who says you should use javascript and not jQuery its crap, given they are writing bespoke javascript and not a javscript framework but when I hear developers say 'great Materialise now uses pure javascript and no need for that crap jQuery now' then proceed to hook up a js file which is twice as larger as the jQuery js file, I think that is a bit suspect.

Bot require initialisation of some kind but that file is only likely to be 10k maybe, so JQquery is still the lighter of the js frameworks.

Why is there a witch hunt in terms of JQuery in this circumstance. I can undertand the bespoke javascript workflow because obviously it is much better in terms of file size.

Hummmmm

Os

[pziecina]

W_J_T  wrote

Well thanks for avoiding my statements and questions across your 3 attempted responses, but ok run away if you must.

He will avoid all questions if you do not agree with him, (or fall back on veiled insults).

jQuery is written in javascript, end.

If it was javascript then please someone explain why the jQuery library is required by the user, and when the developer writes jQuery it will NOT run without the jQuery library file. If it was javascript it would run.

[B i r n o u]

I do not want my words to be taken as partisan statements ... I'm just trying to improve my English language skills, and the philosophical subtleties of computer science.

so

pziecina  a écrit

If it was javascript then please someone explain why the jQuery library is required by the user, and when the developer writes jQuery it will NOT run. If it was javascript it would run.

is there not a difference of interpretation, between saying that jquery is javascript ... in the sense that it is written using only JavaScript and not a third language ... and the fact to say jquery is javascript ... in the sense of equity, synonymous, two names for the same thing ...

diesel is fuel ... gasoline is fuel, but if I put fuel (as gasoline) in my diesel ... aie ... that's not going to do it ...

this to say that even though jquery is javascript, I need to include the library what is ... in my normal sense ...

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

diesel is fuel ... gasoline is fuel, but if I put fuel (as gasoline) in my diesel ... aie ... that's not going to do it ...

this to say that even though jquery is javascript, I need to include the library what is ... in my normal sense ...

The easiest way to think about it Birnou is, a rocket engine, a jet enging, a piston engine, all fall withing the general catagory of 'engine', but they do not work the same way, and are each individual, You may be able to take a few components out of each and say they are the same, (e.g. Fuel injector) but that does not make the jet engine a rocket engine.

The jQuery library is written in javascript, but the jQuery code you or I would write is not javascript. If you look at the ecmascript specification a few of the tokens used in jQuery are the same, but that is it.

[B i r n o u]

pziecina  a écrit

jQuery code you or I would write is not javascript.

I never said that ... I said jQuery being written in JavaScript ... so, it can in common and common language, be said that jQuery is JavaScript .... hence the confusion that can arise from those who say that jQuery IS JavaScript ...

then....

pziecina  a écrit

If it was javascript then please someone explain why the jQuery library is required by the user, and when the developer writes jQuery it will NOT run without the jQuery library file. If it was javascript it would run.

for the needs of my client and the recurrence of some features of his application, I develop a class JS, _ToolBox, written in vanillaJS ...

let's say now that I do not link the file containing it to my HTML document

if from a script I invoke

new _ToolBox () 

... I will get an error and it will not work ... yet ... as it's all about JavaScript and only JavaScript ... it should work as you said? no ?

[pziecina]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote
pziecina   a écrit
If it was javascript then please someone explain why the jQuery library is required by the user, and when the developer writes jQuery it will NOT run without the jQuery library file. If it was javascript it would run.

for the needs of my client and the recurrence of some features of his application, I develop a class JS, _ToolBox, written in vanillaJS ...

let's say now that I do not link the file containing it to my HTML document

if from a script I invoke 
new _ToolBox () 

... I will get an error and it will not work ... yet ... as it's all about JavaScript and only JavaScript ... it should work as you said? no ?

No it will not run as it is missing the construct it requires to do so. You may as well ask why your car/auto will not move, (without someone pushing it) if you have no fuel. A component is missing that is required for it to work.

The example is not a good one, as it is nothing more than saying a php include will not be included if you do not include a reference to it within the html code.

It is like me saying it will rain today, which is 100% correct as it will rain somewhere today, but to be accurate as a statement with relevance I need to say, 'where' it will rain today.

Saying jQuery is javascript, is only correct if we only meen that the jQuery library is written in javascript, and that the jQuery code that a user writes is saved as a javascript file.

[B i r n o u]

pziecina  a écrit

No it will not run as it is missing the construct it requires to do so.

so why we canno't apply this remark to jQuery ?

Anyway, I do not have much time to take my head to cut my hair ...
playing on words ... is not my priority ...

I understand that for you ... jQuery is not JavaScript ... and if jQuery is a reactor, JavaScript is an injector. ..

on my side I think that jQuery is written in JavaScript and that in this sense, and in my environment, I have very, maybe too often, heard that jQuery is JavaScript.

thank you however for your time to have taken so many examples so diverse ... see you later oan another controversy, because I noticed that we often did not have the same vision of things

[pziecina]

Simple question to ask yourself whilst having your hair cut.

Does jQuery comply with ecmascript or use keywords, statements, and the constructs of ecmascript. It is not a play on words, it is a matter of complience.

[B i r n o u]

pziecina  a écrit

Does jQuery comply with ecmascript or use keywords, statements, and the constructs of ecmascript. It is not a play on words, it is a matter of complience.

it is precisely that which plays on the words ...
I noticed on this forum, that some people, do this very often ... and divert the senses, play on the words ... and waste time on others ...

I never said that when we used jQuery we wrote in JavaScript ... no there we write in jQuery ...

what I said, and it seemed to me already clarified this point to message 37, is that jQuery itself, the library jQuery itself, was written in JavaScript ...

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  a écrit

is there not a difference of interpretation, between saying that jquery is javascript ... in the sense that it is written using only JavaScript and not a third language ... and the fact to say jquery is javascript ... in the sense of equity, synonymous, two names for the same thing ...

now I stop there ... answer if you want ... but on my side I have other things more fulfilling to do my time ... thank you for yours anyway

[pziecina]

Final thought as we are getting nowhere.

If jQuery is javascript, then xhtml is the same as html.

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

jQuery is JavaScript. t's just a large file that allows non-programmers to use and reuse various generic functions.

I know that. I was comparing it to materialise.js which is also a large js framework file where the dev suggests its better than Jquery.js I understand writing pure javascript without the dependency on any framework is the optimum way to go, Ive always maintained that, even though I use jQuery for most tasks. Difference is I know which workflow is better, pure javascript, and am happy to admit it. I was just questioning this devs views about dumping jQuery.js and introducing Mmaterialise.js, which to me seem to be doing much the same, providing cookie cut functions in excess files.

[ALsp]

I know that.

It's a relief to see you write this. I was beginning to worry

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

I know that.

It's a relief to see you write this. I was beginning to worry

I'd start worring about that big ego of yours if I was you, its frightening, seriously and getting worse over the years, arrogance knows no bound as far as your concerned. How does your family even begin to live with you if this is your true charachter, very sad.

[ALsp]

You're scary, sometimes. And now you mention my family and expect to be taken seriously. Do you not realize what a fool you are making of yourself. Deal with being corrected, like a grownup. I didn't attack you. I corrected you for the benefit of those non-coders you like to bully who might otherwise run off thinking that jQuery is something it is not. Deal, dude. And find someone else to insult. I could not care less what you say.

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

You're scary, sometimes. And now you mention my family and expect to be taken seriously. Do you not realize what a fool you are making of yourself. Deal with being corrected, like a grownup. I didn't attack you. I corrected you for the benefit of those non-coders you like to bully who might otherwise run off thinking that jQuery is something it is not. Deal, dude. And find someone else to insult. I could not care less what you say.

Show me where I said jQuery is something its not?

pure javascript is a common term used by developers to describe javascript without framework dependencies. You are putting words in my mouth by implying I said jQuery was 'impure' javascript, which was not what I said, its someting you wanted to read into it, like you do so many times - just introverted and blinded by desperately trying to inform us how good your products are (not) as opposed to any others, you're a true legend in your own lunchtime.

Nope you certain didnt attack me, just called me a snob and now a bully, you really are something else...

[ALsp]

But you do bully non-coders, an you do insult people an you have a serious problem with extension developers. So, your diatribes tend to be of a personal-attack nature more often than not. I simply sought to clarify, did it in good nature, and you got defensive and belligerent, and quite personal. I realize that there are thousands of miles between us, and you don't even no me, but if you want some friendly advice, it would be very human of you not to involve peoples' families in your rants. It's not nice.

Now feel free to get in the last word, if that's what makes you happy. Insult me all you want. I would expect nothing less.

[osgood_]

ALsp  wrote

But you do bully non-coders, an you do insult people an you have a serious problem with extension developers. So, your diatribes tend to be of a personal-attack nature more often than not. I simply sought to clarify, did it in good nature, and you got defensive and belligerent, and quite personal. I realize that there are thousands of miles between us, and you don't even no me, but if you want some friendly advice, it would be very human of you not to involve peoples' families in your rants. It's not nice.

Now feel free to get in the last word, if that's what makes you happy. Insult me all you want. I would expect nothing less.

Again show me where I have personallly attacked any new/novice poster and bullied non-coders. Your claims hold no water, they are just laughable and highly entertaining.

I might suggest to a poster they would be advised to learn some basic coding or use another workflow, that's not bullying that's just giving advice, a personal opinion the same as you or any other poster would give a personal opinion. Yes, in terms of the regulars when debating a subject there is a tendency for a thread to become somewhat personal but someone is usually throwing insults at me before I defend myself, like yourself or Ben in particular, no-one else that I cant think of, they are all highly diplomatic, Paula, Nancy, Jon conduct themselves in a grown up manner unlike you or possible myslelf on some ocassions. Some regulars like Birouo may misinterpret my posts and think I have insulted him but I am quick to apologise if this happens.

Did you not call me a snob initially in this thread? I think you did, then I became defensive, what do you expect to happen if you go around insulting people? I personally dont even think you realise you are doing so. Do you expect them to welcome you with open arms?

Youre only issue is that I disagree on the whole with using extensions and as youre an extension developer I would expect you to have a different view.  However it doesnt give you the right to assume youre right and I am wrong, both are informed opinions, or to then insult me because of that difference of opinion regarding extensions.

[B i r n o u]

hello Al,

thanks for your words, that help to clearly catch the bottom line...

because, I'm not quite clear in my english... and I often don't really well understand when someone speaks english in a native way (low slang)..

but Al, when you say to OS "I simply sought to clarify, did it in good nature, and you got defensive and belligerent, and quite personal. I realize that there are thousands of miles between us, and you don't even no me,"...

that's exactly what I feel when I make an opinion that differs from OS's and read his answer

so OS ... when you give different ideas to those we present to you ... which is more than normal ... could you please not have words that are inappropriate, see insulting ... is not belittling the other that you will impose your vision ...

[B i r n o u]

osgood_  wrote

pure javascript is a common term used by developers to describe javascript without framework dependencies.

please avoid confusion with pure-js... https://pure-js.com/

[osgood_]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/B+i+r+n+o+u  wrote

osgood_  wrote

pure javascript is a common term used by developers to describe javascript without framework dependencies.

please avoid confusion with pure-js... https://pure-js.com/

Im not confusing anything, you may be confused though if you think that. It's common knowledege what the term 'pure javascript' means to most developers.

[BenPleysier]

First you write

osgood_  wrote

I don't want to stir up a hornets nest here but if devs wants to make some sensible contibutions giving their opinions, without getting personal, please do so.

Hummmmm

Os

Then you say

I defend myself, like yourself or Ben in particular

Hummmmm

Ben

As far as jQuery/JavaScript is concerned, I like to compare it to Sass/CSS or Pascal/Assembly et al. where the former is a higher language to the latter.

[BenPleysier]

Come to think of it, HTML is interpreted by a program written in C++ (Firefox). The C++ program is bloated because it has to cope with many possible variants. Taking the argument of using vanilla JS in favour of jQuery, should we code our sites using C++ or even go back to Assembly?

[pziecina]

BenPleysier  wrote

Come to think of it, HTML is interpreted by a program written in C++ (Firefox). The C++ program is bloated because it has to cope with many possible variants. Taking the argument of using vanilla JS in favour of jQuery, should we code our sites using C++ or even go back to Assembly?

Let's take everything to the final conclussion.

To work on a computer everything comes down to binary code, which is then translated to electrical impulses going through, 'and, or, not, nor' gate constructs within the processor.

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

First you write

osgood_   wrote

I don't want to stir up a hornets nest here but if devs wants to make some sensible contibutions giving their opinions, without getting personal, please do so.

Hummmmm

Os

Then you say

I defend myself, like yourself or Ben in particular

Hummmmm

Ben, be sensible please. Was it me who started personal attacks in this thread? A simple yes or no, if you wiil. I think it will be a no if you care to read the thread post by post and not subjectively. If someone cares to throw an insult at me, that's fine, then I'll throw one right back - I  have a right to defend myself in that situation.

[BenPleysier]

osgood_  wrote

Ben, be sensible please. Was it me who started personal attacks in this thread? A simple yes or no, if you wiil. I think it will be a no if you care to read the thread post by post and not subjectively. If someone cares to throw an insult at me, that's fine, then I'll throw one right back - I  have a right to defend myself in that situation.

This leaves little room for imagination and it certainly was not me.

osgood_​ wrote

Yes, in terms of the regulars when debating a subject there is a tendency for a thread to become somewhat personal but someone is usually throwing insults at me before I defend myself, like yourself or Ben in particular, no-one else that I cant think of, they are all highly diplomatic, Paula, Nancy, Jon conduct themselves in a grown up manner unlike you or possible myslelf on some ocassions. Some regulars like Birouo may misinterpret my posts and think I have insulted him but I am quick to apologise if this happens.

I wasn't even going to respond to this futile discussion until I saw that.

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

osgood_   wrote

Ben, be sensible please. Was it me who started personal attacks in this thread? A simple yes or no, if you wiil. I think it will be a no if you care to read the thread post by post and not subjectively. If someone cares to throw an insult at me, that's fine, then I'll throw one right back - I  have a right to defend myself in that situation.

This leaves little room for imagination and it certainly was not me.

Youre answering in riddles again. What certainly was not you?

BenPleysier  wrote

osgood_   wrote

Ben, be sensible please. Was it me who started personal attacks in this thread? A simple yes or no, if you wiil. I think it will be a no if you care to read the thread post by post and not subjectively. If someone cares to throw an insult at me, that's fine, then I'll throw one right back - I  have a right to defend myself in that situation.

This leaves little room for imagination and it certainly was not me.

osgood_  wrote

Yes, in terms of the regulars when debating a subject there is a tendency for a thread to become somewhat personal but someone is usually throwing insults at me before I defend myself, like yourself or Ben in particular, no-one else that I cant think of, they are all highly diplomatic, Paula, Nancy, Jon conduct themselves in a grown up manner unlike you or possible myslelf on some ocassions. Some regulars like Birouo may misinterpret my posts and think I have insulted him but I am quick to apologise if this happens.

I wasn't even going to respond to this futile discussion until I saw that.

Well it is you in particular that I seem to get into heated debates with and it is you in particular that seems to lose it and start throwing insults around before anyone else.