Comment

Comment on Which side are you? Javascript or Typescript

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

Sort:hotnew top

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
    SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I mean you’re coming across like more of an old man than I am and that’s saying a lot more than you know. For the first 2 years people shit talked jQuery I didn’t agree with them. And then I got the opportunity to work without it and it seriously took like 3 days to completely change my mind. And all my pages were I believe about 100KB lighter.
    
    jQuery is trash. And that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a great tool for its time. It’s truly obsolete now though. If you hate the native JavaScript stuff so much… I dunno maybe go work with Java or something?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments