Comment by austin-cheney 4 days ago
Why is that not good? JavaScript is full of layers of unnecessary abstraction often for completely superficial reasons and sometimes even irrationally applied at great cost in defiance of evidence and simplicity. So, what makes this specific example less good than all the other countless examples of abstractions most JavaScript developers would happily die to defend?
jQuery provided a DOM manipulation API that was the same in all browsers when there were lots of differences between browser implementations. While you could do everything using standard web APIs, that would be incredibly error prone and tedious at a time when `querySelector` was not a thing yet.
Lodash does way more than some basic functional wrappers. I've seen too many buggy re-implementations of debounce, throttle and groupBy at this point, it's not even funny.
Life without jQuery was never as hard as you claim. jQuery broke in IE9 more than it helped, but it was also a cult and many developers were entirely unemployable without it.
This is such a weirdly contrarian take. You’re basically saying that everything in context is terrible, and somehow at the same time, on the same basis, that it’s wrong to critique anything because everything is terrible.
That’s certainly a logically consistent position, but it isn’t one that allows much room for anything to improve… or even become a productive discussion.
No, I am saying don't complain about something only because its an abstraction when likely the person making that comment cannot program without vanity abstractions. Clearly, this is about bias and preference. At the very least people could be consistent in their reasoning.
This is a discussion forum, you know? Different people, different opinions. You can go ahead and use JAQT which I found fine but I prefer to avoid adding external dependencies. I hope it doesn't hurt your feelings too much but the good thing is that you can continuing using JS the way you like.
because in the past it didn't have those functional constructors so things like underscore or lodash would be needed but adding a layer as you mentioned. It is not good, for me, to add a dependency for this again. But in the end I have in my utils file a few functions that basically do what JAQT does and I might copy a few more.