New jQuery announced!
in [JavaScript]
|
From: David Mark on 21 Dec 2009 13:25 On Dec 21, 9:47 am, Hans-Georg Michna <hans- georgNoEmailPle...(a)michna.com> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:07:21 GMT, rf wrote: > >"Hans-Georg Michna" <hans-georgNoEmailPle...(a)michna.com> wrote in message > >news:v7hui5la535o3haa1uo53odlpch1jj27mj(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:44:12 -0800, Garrett Smith wrote: > >>>What would a developer who understands the technology want jQuery for? > >> Shorter, nicer-looking, easier-to-understand code perhaps? > > >> I must admit that I like jQuery's functional notation very much. > >> I wish I had a version of jQuery that also worked perfectly > >> under the hood. I told you where to find something similar. It's even got a $ if you really want that. ;) > >So why don't you write your own scripting language? > > Have to make a living. (:-) With jQuery? That cycle is at the end. > > >> Haven't had any problems with jQuery yet, but that may be > >> because I didn't do very deep things with it and didn't test > >> with many older browsers. > >Or many newer ones. > > OK, I haven't done any very thorough tests. No question. So what makes you think it is free of problems? It doesn't get much more shallow than reading an attribute or property value. ;) > > The critical point here is that many people feel a need for > something like jQuery, and not all of them understand all the > implications. > Most, if not all, as once you uncover the basic ramifications, you stop using it (and all things like it).
From: Matt Kruse on 21 Dec 2009 14:44 On Dec 21, 12:25 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ;) > ... > ;) Your weekly quota for smileys has already been exceeded. Please try again next week. Thank you. Matt Kruse
From: John G Harris on 21 Dec 2009 14:47 On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 at 10:59:50, in comp.lang.javascript, Hans-Georg Michna wrote: <snip> >Haven't had any problems with jQuery yet, but that may be >because I didn't do very deep things with it and didn't test >with many older browsers. I go to the Dilbert home page every day. Sometimes it stops with just the banner ad showing and reports a javascript error. Not Good. Is it a coincidence that they're using JQuery and I'm using IE8 ? John -- John Harris
From: David Mark on 21 Dec 2009 16:11 On Dec 21, 2:47 pm, John G Harris <j...(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 at 10:59:50, in comp.lang.javascript, Hans-Georg > > Michna wrote: > > <snip> > > >Haven't had any problems with jQuery yet, but that may be > >because I didn't do very deep things with it and didn't test > >with many older browsers. > > I go to the Dilbert home page every day. Sometimes it stops with just > the banner ad showing and reports a javascript error. Not Good. Is it a > coincidence that they're using JQuery and I'm using IE8 ? > Sounds suspicious. :) What happens if you click the compatibility mode button (or perhaps this page does it for you?) I typically find sites using jQuery that appear to work in IE8 proper, but blow up in compatibility mode. That tells me they were "tested" in IE8, but not IE < 8. Not a promising sign at all. ;)
From: Garrett Smith on 21 Dec 2009 18:25
David Mark wrote: > On Dec 21, 2:47 pm, John G Harris <j...(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 at 10:59:50, in comp.lang.javascript, Hans-Georg >> >> Michna wrote: >> >> <snip> >> [...] > > Sounds suspicious. :) What happens if you click the compatibility > mode button (or perhaps this page does it for you?) I typically find > sites using jQuery that appear to work in IE8 proper, but blow up in > compatibility mode. That tells me they were "tested" in IE8, but not > IE < 8. Not a promising sign at all. ;) > That compatibility button seems like a big mistake from the start. -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/ |