Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #31951 > unrolled thread

jQuery tries and fails to be modular

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  jQuery tries and fails to be modular David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 14:31 -0800
    Re: jQuery tries and fails to be modular Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-30 19:09 +1100
      Re: jQuery tries and fails to be modular Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-12-30 16:19 +0000
        Re: jQuery tries and fails to be modular David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 10:20 -0800
      Re: jQuery tries and fails to be modular David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 10:13 -0800

#31951 — jQuery tries and fails to be modular

jQuery tries and fails to be modular. It jumps through hoops to try to fit into CommonJS and NodeJS modules, but it's self-defeating.

https://github.com/jquery/jquery/issues/3440

Another ticket closed without understanding and with a typically pointless rationalization:

"We haven't experienced many problems with this design decision."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#32034

On 24/12/2016 9:31 AM, David Mark wrote:
> jQuery tries and fails to be modular. It jumps through hoops to try
> to fit into CommonJS and NodeJS modules, but it's self-defeating.
>
> https://github.com/jquery/jquery/issues/3440
>
> Another ticket closed without understanding and with a typically
> pointless rationalization:
>
> "We haven't experienced many problems with this design decision."

I'm in two minds about this. With light bulbs I wait until they burn out 
before I replace them whereas my car's brakes are checked every 3 months 
and repaired/replaced before anything goes.

For a given situation, if a failure isn't going to be potentially 
catastrophic why put in excessive effort? It would drive me nuts to 
regularly get out a light meter to check the luminance output of a light 
bulb and a electric meter to check how much current it's using. 
Sometimes, isn't "good enough" good enough?

Andrew Poulos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32036

For your reference, records indicate that 
Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sometimes, isn't "good enough" good enough?

It is.  But, then, isn’t basic JavaScript good enough for most things?  
There are certainly issues it has that need to be fixed, but always 
slapping a monolithic library on top of it to do that isn’t the right 
way to approach development.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32039

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 11:20:38 AM UTC-5, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Sometimes, isn't "good enough" good enough?
> 
> It is.  But, then, isn’t basic JavaScript good enough for most things?  
> There are certainly issues it has that need to be fixed, but always 
> slapping a monolithic library on top of it to do that isn’t the right 
> way to approach development.

Indeed. Most Web document enhancements and applications should be kept as lightweight and simple as possible. Adding frameworks and libraries is often counterproductive in both areas.

AngularJS certainly comes to mind as it tries to "simplify" modular development by adding hideous and overly complicated client side interfaces. At least jQuery's "modular" hoop jumping happens in their offline build process. It would seem to be motivated by a desire to add the "cross-platform" label by running on NodeJS, which seems like a completely ridiculous thing to do with jQuery.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32038

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 3:09:14 AM UTC-5, Andrew Poulos wrote:
> On 24/12/2016 9:31 AM, David Mark wrote:
> > jQuery tries and fails to be modular. It jumps through hoops to try
> > to fit into CommonJS and NodeJS modules, but it's self-defeating.
> >
> > https://github.com/jquery/jquery/issues/3440
> >
> > Another ticket closed without understanding and with a typically
> > pointless rationalization:
> >
> > "We haven't experienced many problems with this design decision."
> 
> I'm in two minds about this. With light bulbs I wait until they burn out 
> before I replace them whereas my car's brakes are checked every 3 months 
> and repaired/replaced before anything goes.

The main point is that they are jumping through hoops to try to be a "modern" modular library, but examination of the code proves that their efforts are mostly pointless. Another recurring theme is that they rarely acknowledge, let alone fix issues. Often it seems they don't even understand basic issues with their own code.

> 
> For a given situation, if a failure isn't going to be potentially 
> catastrophic why put in excessive effort? It would drive me nuts to 
> regularly get out a light meter to check the luminance output of a light 
> bulb and a electric meter to check how much current it's using. 
> Sometimes, isn't "good enough" good enough?

I've always felt that because all browser scripts share the global DOM that modularity is often just an illusion. Certainly it can help avoid some issues, but jQuery isn't benefiting much from their attempts at it.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web