Comment on Which side are you? Javascript or Typescript

$("#element").show();

document.getElementById("element").style.display = '';

• SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  That’s actually a great example of the shortcomings of jQuery. There are multiple ways to hide an element yet they standardized on one that often wouldn’t work.

  Also you’re using an ancient method getElementById… I think visuals should still be controlled with css. So what is the right way to do that in modern js? document.querySelector(‘.some-name’).classList.add(‘hidden’) with that class defined in the css, with whatever makes sense, including maybe a css transition.

  source

  • severien@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    There are multiple ways to hide an element yet they standardized on one that often wouldn’t work.

    It’s the most common one. And it’s not like you can’t hide the element with some other mechanism with jQuery.

    Also you’re using an ancient method getElementById…

    And? What’s the difference from document.querySelector() when querying for ID?

    So what is the right way to do that in modern js?

    What is the right way is context dependent. I don’t see how having extra .hidden { display: none; } boilerplate is somehow modern or superior.

    source

    • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      What’s the difference

      Your code reads like it’s from 1992 mainly, which makes sense I guess, given that you still find jQuery better than modern vanilla js. jQuery was created as a way to account for browser support challenges but is now obsolete. Anyhow, if I read “getElementById” in recent js code I would assume something was weird about that code. It’s old hat and there is rarely a reason to use it.

      What is the right way is context dependent

      Precisely my point. Which is why I think it’s opinionated in a bad way to arbitrarily pick one of them as the defacto. I often had trouble with jQuery’s .hide() method because while it felt natural to use it, but often conflicted with what actually needed to happen for good UX.

      source

      • severien@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Your code reads like it’s from 1992 mainly

        Lol. You write a lot of text to mask the fact there’s no good reason why getElementById should be bad. It’s the same groupthink as with the jQuery, you’re told it’s bad so you just follow the crowd.

        jQuery was created as a way to account for browser support challenges

        That was one of the reasons. The other was that DOM API was and still is crap.

        Which is why I think it’s opinionated in a bad way to arbitrarily pick one of them as the defacto.

        You’re missing the fact that jQuery does not prevent you from hiding the element in other ways. It’s just optimizing for the most common case, which is one of the principles of good API.

        What you’re missing is that the hidden class can contain anything you want. Animations or whatever else.

        Sure, and when I just want to … hide it, without any animations? Then this hidden class is boilerplate only.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• fidodo@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Why would you not want to be using a rendering library? Your code is basically storing your application state in the dom which will turn into a horrible mess as soon as you reach any actual level of complexity. I know first hand. I’m traumatized from having to maintain large jquery code bases in the 00s. No serious professional writes code like this anymore.

  Also, your vanilla code isn’t modern. It should look more like this:

  document.querySelector("#element").classList.toggle("hidden")
  

  I could see not wanting to use a rendering library if you’re building a simple site on top of basic static HTML, but that’s not a serious discussion for industry professionals, and even still, jQuery is such a heavy dependency for saving some characters. If you find yourself using it so much you need the extra convenience then your site is already complicated enough that you should be using a rendering library with state management instead.

  source

  • severien@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Why would you not want to be using a rendering library?

    Because it’s just not very useful in some contexts. I’ve seen web extensions which mostly query the current page, and it doesn’t render much or even anything.

    Not all pages are SPAs either. Many apps are the old request-response with some dynamic behavior sprinkled on top. jQuery covers that well.

    This model is also quite compatible with the rising HTMX where the state/rendering is driven from backend and you just insert few dynamic pieces with JS.

    source