A trackback on one of my previous posts (yeah, trackbacks aren’t just for spam) alerted me to an interesting point brought up by a blogger named Matt Pass . In his post entitled Walnut, Meet jQuery Sledgehammer he politely explains why he feels it’s overkill to use jQuery in a simple tutorial post.
A trackback on one of my previous posts (yeah, trackbacks aren’t just for spam) alerted me to an interesting point brought up by a blogger named Matt Pass. In his post entitled Walnut, Meet jQuery Sledgehammer he politely explains why he feels it’s overkill to use jQuery in a simple tutorial post.
His main point is summarized in this quote:
I almost responded to James’ commment at the time, and I had written a comment for Matt’s post, but felt this was something I wanted to open up to my larger audience.
Is Library-less Code a Reality Anymore?
for loop might be more performant than jQuery’s
But in my opinion, simple code examples that use jQuery code are not overkill at all, but are simply catering to the needs of modern developers — the majority of whom are using jQuery in the very projects where they might be using the simple tutorial code Matt is talking about.
Finally, the other reason I think it’s okay to use jQuery in a post like that is that, well, the point of those posts is often more about principles or concepts, not code architecture, cross-browser issues, or other peripheral matters that would, in my view, distract from the point of the post.
I will continue to use jQuery even in simple posts that are more focused on CSS3. But maybe there’s something I’m overlooking. Would love to hear anyone’s feedback on this.
- Getting Buggy CSS Selectors to Work Cross-Browser via jQuery
- Recreating the MLB.com Content Switcher with jQuery and CSS3
- How to Do Absolutely Everything Ever in jQuery, CSS3, & HTML5