jQuery + IE8--told you so

[David Mark]

No.

I say yes. The basic idea and central metaphor is doing things to a
group of elements in one line of code (which then proceeds to make
hundreds of function calls, dancing through minefields of faulty logic
and misconceptions.)

None of it has ever been useful. Period.

This will prevent an event delegation strategy from working.

Thanks, professor. What does that have to do with jQuery? How does
jQuery make event delegation simpler to understand and/or more
concise? Likely the same way it did for attributes, properties,
computed styles, XML, etc., etc. That is to say that it propagates
mass confusion, which its users mistakenly blame on "differences
between browsers" or "buggy Javascript." Thank heaves they have
jQuery (one of them anyway) to see them through.

Sometimes one works on pieces of code which exists within a container
that is outside of their control.

You are truly trapped in a world you did not create.

I have nothing more to say when run from an argument.

That wasn't an argument for jQuery was it? I stated delegation was
far superior to the typical "Unobtrusive Javascript" method of
attaching listeners to multiple siblings. You stated jQuery "has"
that (just like it had attributes and properties.) I stated that it
doesn't matter, then you came up with some nonsense about overhead
that jQuery has just the same. You are too loopy to argue with.

Did.

Thanks for the advice about adding classes. Don't need jQuery for
that either.

I have 9 hens, and they don't cluck when they get wet. Curious.

Eb, you miserable...

And yet here you are, day after day, doing google searches and
examining code of a general-purposes browser scripting library, trying
to identify its faults, because it has proven to be incredibly
popular.

And you still don't get it. It is a colossal failure. Obviously.
Even you can't miss that. Its popularity is its curse and will lead
to its downfall. Even you have to see that.

I am talking about it in the same way that a few people pointed out
that maybe that Madoff guy wasn't so smart after all. Accountability
is needed. If you don't appreciate it and want to lose your savings
in a puff of logic, go right ahead, but stop bitching about it.

They will never try to steal the phonograph because it has no
`commercial value.'
    - Thomas Edison (1847-1931). (He later revised that opinion.)

This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no
value to us.
    - Western Union internal memo, 1878

Radio has no future.
    - Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist,
ca. 1897.

jQuery Rocks!
- Lots of clueless lemmings

While theoretically and technically television may be feasible,
commercially and financially I consider it an impossibility, a
development of which we need waste little time dreaming.
    - Lee DeForest, 1926 (American radio pioneer and inventor of the
vacuum tube.)

What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of
locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?
    - The Quarterly Review, England (March 1825)

The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad.
    - Advice from a president of the Michigan Savings Bank to Henry
Ford's lawyer Horace Rackham. Rackham ignored the advice and invested
$5000 in Ford stock, selling it later for $12.5 million.

That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its
development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no
improvements of a radical nature have been introduced.
    - Scientific American, Jan. 2, 1909.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
    - Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and
physicist

Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
    - Marshal Ferdinand Foch, French military strategist, 1911. He was
later a World War I commander.

So it *is* possible that lots of people could be wrong? I must have
missed your point (assuming you had one.) Predicting the future is
tricky, but certainly not in the case of jQuery.

To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the
controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can
make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to
earth--all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am
bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur
regardless of all future advances.
    - Lee deForest (1873-1961) (American radio pioneer and inventor of
the vacuum tube.) Feb 25, 1957.

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their
home.
    - Kenneth Olsen, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,
1977.

See? There are others like you! Thankfully, people ignore your types
and move forward.

That's my line.

If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be
that of an expert saying it can't be done.
    - Peter Ustinov

Why don't you blow yourself up?

And completely unusable. You may have solved some of the problems, but

Is it?! Seems a lot of people are learning from it (namely you and
John Resig.)

you have done so in a way that is not what people actually need. You

How so?

are the equivalent of an engineer who slaves away creating a beautiful
new product while a salesman goes out and benefits from it by
marketing it and packaging it in a way that the public wants. Except
you don't have a salesman.

LOL. I'm not selling *that*. How do you "sell" a freely available
script anyway?

Sexually?

Ask your other hen. She'll tell you.

 

[Matt Kruse]

Why don't you blow yourself up?

That's rude.

Is it?!  Seems a lot of people are learning from it (namely you and
John Resig.)

I do admit to having looked it for about 15 minutes. It was bloated,
obtuse, seemingly obfuscated, and overly complicated to package. But
it sure looked solid. I'm not sure I learned anything from it, since I
don't remember any of it.

How so?

You've provided a bunch of functions, but you haven't wrapped
functionality in such a way that makes it more usable, accessible, and
clear to novice developers. In fact, I'd say you've added a layer of
complexity rather than removing a layer (similar to YUI). At least
jQuery removes a layer of complexity and allows the developer to think
in a different manner (even if it does so poorly).

Ask your other hen.  She'll tell you.

Your lack of wit must be frustrating. You're like a one-legged man in
an ass-kicking contest.

Matt Kruse

 

[David Mark]

That's rude.


I do admit to having looked it for about 15 minutes. It was bloated,

Bloated?! Couldn't be more streamlined.

obtuse, seemingly obfuscated, and overly complicated to package.

Your memory is faulty:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/440d31bf380187c5

"I finally got a chance to look through your library. It's robust and
technically solid..."

You mentioned it was superior to the other "major libraries" on these
points:

"1. Cross-browser, future-proof coding
2. Design and quality code/technical accuracy
3. API clarity "

So, who are you?

But
it sure looked solid. I'm not sure I learned anything from it, since I
don't remember any of it.

Obviously. You can see bits of it in jQuery though. Tell me you
can't (assuming you can endure more humiliation.)

You've provided a bunch of functions, but you haven't wrapped

An API.

functionality in such a way that makes it more usable, accessible, and
clear to novice developers.

Actually, that's a complete falsehood. There is a completely optional
OO wrapper that makes it work much like jQuery (only the metaphors
make sense.) Or you can roll your own objects. *That* is not hard
(again, see the code.)

In fact, I'd say you've added a layer of
complexity rather than removing a layer (similar to YUI). At least

It is clear that you would say about anything.

jQuery removes a layer of complexity and allows the developer to think
in a different manner (even if it does so poorly).

You seem to be babbling randomly at this point.

Your lack of wit must be frustrating. You're like a one-legged man in
an ass-kicking contest.

I don't think you'd fare very well in an ass-kicking contest.

 

[Thomas Allen]

Well, I just upgraded to IE8 on my Windows VM, and lo and behold, all
of the jQuery functionality on my websites works perfectly, including
some pretty complex interfaces (Views UI in Drupal, for one). I guess
it is, like David said, jQuery's Y2K: Nothing happened.

Thomas

 

[David Mark]

Well, I just upgraded to IE8 on my Windows VM, and lo and behold, all
of the jQuery functionality on my websites works perfectly, including

Or so you think. But does it matter if it is somehow straddling the
land mines? You can't have the slightest confidence in twiddling with
them now (again, the exceptions are the irretrievably stupid.) You
might as well tear them down and start over. Of course, you would
have to learn Javascript basics first.

some pretty complex interfaces (Views UI in Drupal, for one). I guess
it is, like David said, jQuery's Y2K: Nothing happened.

So all of those other reports were figments of imagination; your five
minutes of surfing and expert observation trump all of them (plus the
code?)

What happened is three years of conditioning went out the window.
There's no actual documentation for the attr and related methods, so
clearly people were going by their experience. The rules have changed
overnight (if you can call all those months of IE8 Beta testing
overnight), exacerbating what was an existing and fatal flaw in the
design and forcing everyone to come to a screeching halt to reevaluate
their own code. Also broke lots of plugins, Websites, applications,
mashups, etc. But you know that.

There's no easy way to fix it either. They can't even fix the
documentation as it wouldn't approach "concise" after that. Certainly
they can't rewrite the books or reprogram everyone's brains, so they
are pretty much stuck at this point. I don't think they understand
the issue(s) anyway. If they had understood them, they never would
have slept through IE8. I know you don't understand them, so why do
you feel compelled to play the role of the apologist?

Which version are you using BTW and perhaps you would like to share
your wonderful examples of progressive enhancement through jQuery?
They will likely expose the flaws in your thinking.

 

[Thomas Allen]

Of course, you would have to learn Javascript basics first.

OK, first off, stop that bullcrap. I help people out here with JS
questions, and while I'm not an expert, to say that I don't know the
basics is ridiculous.

Also broke lots of plugins, Websites, applications,

The only thing that the upgrade may have broken is crap code. The only
plugin I use is Validate, which is working fine. The rest is my own
code which is simple and works well.

so why do you feel compelled to play the role of the apologist?

Because there's an aggressor making up nonsense? Seems like the right
thing to do with the hard work that people put into making the library
work properly. On the other hand, why do you care at all if you don't
use jQuery? Makes no sense.

Which version are you using BTW

Depending on the site, anywhere from 1.2.3 to 1.3.2.

Thomas

 

[David Mark]

OK, first off, stop that bullcrap. I help people out here with JS
questions, and while I'm not an expert, to say that I don't know the
basics is ridiculous.

Care to put it to a vote?

The only thing that the upgrade may have broken is crap code. The only

That describes everything ever written on top of jQuery.

plugin I use is Validate, which is working fine.

As you see it. Of course, using a jQuery plug-in to validate a form
is madness, but there you are.

The rest is my own

code which is simple and works well.

Simple I buy.

Because there's an aggressor making up nonsense?

How does that make you feel?

Seems like the right
thing to do with the hard work that people put into making the library

Spreading misinformation is never the right thing to do. And what
hard work? It's 50K of junk written three years ago by a student.
Now it's a cult. Do you mean the marketing effort? Sorry if I don't
appreciate some nitwit polluting the Web with nonsense to sell books.

work properly. On the other hand, why do you care at all if you don't
use jQuery? Makes no sense.

Why do you care if I care if I don't use jQuery? Makes no sense.

Depending on the site, anywhere from 1.2.3 to 1.3.2.

Ladies and gentlemen, the irretrievably stupid.

 

[Matt Kruse]

There's no actual documentation for the attr and related methods, so
clearly people were going by their experience.

When will you get over your little revelation about the 'attr' method?
You're a broken record.

Matt Kruse

 

[David Mark]

When will you get over your little revelation about the 'attr' method?

There's nothing for me to "get over." It is a fact that the Web is
covered with jQuery x.y scripts, they all act differently, most employ
UA-based browser sniffing, all were totally unnecessary and a bad idea
to start with.

The attr method is just one example (as you know) that singularly
proves jQuery folly, just by its existence and history. It's a
microcosm of the whole doomed enterprise. It really cuts straight
through the onion. If you can't put the pieces together after all of
this "discussion", then you are simply a fool.

All hell is breaking loose with simple sites that should have never
had to worry about upgrading a fucking CSS selector query engine in
their lifetime, let alone rely on weird XML detection logic to set a
property (logic that just changed, along with browser sniffing and
hundreds of other complications.)

It is a ridiculous situation and browser scripting is going to become
irrelevant if it is permitted to continue. So the only sensible thing
to do is to destroy it completely. Do you have a problem with that?

You're a broken record.

That's precisely what I think of you (and your current shadow.) A
periodic broken record. Every year and a half you pop-up to plug
jQuery and we have to go through this attributes song and dance.
Leave it alone. I actually tried to help you in the first place. You
either missed it or didn't understand, now here you are again. Only
the IE version has changed.

 

[John G Harris]

While theoretically and technically television may be feasible,
commercially and financially I consider it an impossibility, a
development of which we need waste little time dreaming.
- Lee DeForest, 1926 (American radio pioneer and inventor of the
vacuum tube.)

<snip>

Many of the commercial TV companies in the UK are in deep financial
trouble.

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their
home.
- Kenneth Olsen, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,
1977.

<snip>

Cloud computing.

John

 

[Eric Bednarz]

[…]

You're a broken record.

So stop inserting coins into the jukebox.

 

[Matt Kruse]

So stop inserting coins into the jukebox.

True, true.

Matt Kruse

 

[David Mark]

  <snip>

Many of the commercial TV companies in the UK are in deep financial
trouble.

They died out in the US a long time ago.

[snip]

 

[David Mark]

True, true.

If only you would have heeded my similar advice about a hundred posts
ago. Just leave it alone.

 

[David Mark]

First anecdotal report I've spotted:

http://news.cnet.com/microsoft-launches-ie-8-with-a-smile/

"... And today is not Microsoft's day on the Internet, since their
bloated browser can't even display a JQuery page correctly."

Certainly these sorts of complaints will reach a crescendo as the
masses upgrade IE (or have it upgraded for them.)

I wish jQuery users would shut up about the attr method. They are
like broken records.

http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/4283

Resig tried to close it immediately, a month back:

"This is the correct behavior. If you're serving up your document as
XML you need to treat it like a proper XML document - which means only
modifying the actual DOM attributes (and not the expandos)."



Some other pinhead chimed in with this:

"jQuery does many hacky things in the name of compatibility for HTML
documents. It seems that one goal of XHTML+XML is to require a high
level of precision on the part of the designer/developer to say
precisely what they mean with no sloppiness. There are significant
gotchas to trying to read minds."

No, it does lots of hacky things to break compatibility for HTML
documents.

"Just before your ticket last night, I looked at #4281 which is the
other side of this coin. That person wants to know why .attr
("onclick", "javascriptcode") only works once; it's due to the browser-
induced magic of attributes becoming properties. The same goes for an
element's style property (a CSSStyleDeclaration object) versus its
style attribute (a string, if it's specified at all)."

Browser-induced magic, indeed. I hate to say I told you so.

And the proposed "fix" from two weeks ago:

http://dev.jquery.com/attachment/ticket/4283/4283 Temporary Fix.txt

"I've uploaded a temporary fix by proxying attr and remoteAttr. It's
not an ideal solution or fix. But for folks with the server sending
application-xhtml+xml content type correctly, this will work."

Of course, jQuery won't do anything right in XML parse mode, but that
is a minor detail compared to the rest of the discussion.

 

[Matt Kruse]

"Just before your ticket last night, I looked at #4281 which is the
other side of this coin. That person wants to know why .attr
("onclick", "javascriptcode") only works once; it's due to the browser-
induced magic of attributes becoming properties. The same goes for an
element's style property (a CSSStyleDeclaration object) versus its
style attribute (a string, if it's specified at all)."

This post goes on to say:

"It seems like this case would benefit from a $().prop() method that
you could use that when you know for sure that you need to get/set a
property and not an attribute."

Which is funny, because that's exactly what I have in my local
"corrected" version of jQuery, and it works well. No need for attr(),
which I'm sure will be overhauled (and hopefully split into different
methods) at some point in the near future and have its functionality
clarified.

Matt Kruse

 

[David Mark]

This post goes on to say:

"It seems like this case would benefit from a $().prop() method that
you could use that when you know for sure that you need to get/set a
property and not an attribute."

*This* case would benefit from a separate method to get/set
properties? Where have I heard that theory?

Which is funny, because that's exactly what I have in my local
"corrected" version of jQuery, and it works well.

Glad somebody was listening. Of course, it is too late to rewrite all
of the books, re-record all of the videos, change everybody's
assumptions, etc. Glad it works for you though!

No need for attr(),
which I'm sure will be overhauled (and hopefully split into different
methods) at some point in the near future and have its functionality
clarified.

Who cares if it is "overhauled?" It is ten years too late to justify
jQuery. You'll see what I mean when I do my summing up (won't be
posted here, but will refer to the same resources.)

And they *can't* split it up, which is the only overhaul that makes
any sense (as I mentioned over a year and a half ago.)

You weren't listening then. When did you start listening?

 

[David Mark]

This post goes on to say:

"It seems like this case would benefit from a $().prop() method that
you could use that when you know for sure that you need to get/set a
property and not an attribute."

Which is funny, because that's exactly what I have in my local
"corrected" version of jQuery, and it works well.

And if you must run a "corrected" version, then you know something is
broken. Why did you not submit a ticket? Why did you not answer any
of the misunderstood questions in the forum(s). Why would you
question my assessments about the problem? You are obviously a
complete hypocrite.

Also, how do you figure that your vague promises about future
overhauls mean anything? If you had been paying attention way back
when, it wouldn't need an overhaul (hint: overhauls are a major pain
in the ass for everyone involved, not to mention a waste of money.)

[snip]

 

[Matt Kruse]

Of course, it is too late to rewrite all
of the books, re-record all of the videos, change everybody's
assumptions, etc.

One more place we disagree.

They are phasing out the browser sniffing and people are learning to
use feature detection (in some form).
The latest version of jQuery actually broke plugins and existing code
because it changed how things work.
They completely changed the meaning of the :visible pseudo-selector
with the latest release, which broke code, but people quickly caught
up.

If John et al demand strict backwards-compatibility, then yeah,
they're kind of screwed. Hopefully they will be willing to change the
API and modify existing behavior as needed to make the whole thing
more solid. I trust they will, you assume they won't.

Who cares if it is "overhauled?"  It is ten years too late to justify
jQuery.  You'll see what I mean when I do my summing up (won't be
posted here, but will refer to the same resources.)

I don't follow.

Matt Kruse

 

[David Mark]

One more place we disagree.

Of course. I'd say I disagree with you in the same way that I
disagree with dandelions in my lawn. They don't really have a
position either.

They are phasing out the browser sniffing and people are learning to

Phasing out the browser sniffing? In 2009? After ten years of calm
on the IE front, just after IE8 is released? This seems sane to you?

use feature detection (in some form).

They are only up to the page on object inferences.

The latest version of jQuery actually broke plugins and existing code
because it changed how things work.

Thank you.

They completely changed the meaning of the :visible pseudo-selector

Thank you.

with the latest release, which broke code, but people quickly caught
up.

YMMD. And, of course, none of this justifies the idea of binding
Websites and applications to an ever-shifting collection of
misconceptions.

If John et al demand strict backwards-compatibility, then yeah,

They don't demand anything. They break compatibility between jQuery
versions, browser versions and configurations and they do it *all the
time*.

they're kind of screwed. Hopefully they will be willing to change the

They're very much screwed. The books are kindling. Obviously. All
code that has ever been written on top of jQuery must now be modified
to use the new version(s) (assuming there is ever one that can be
considered stable.)

API and modify existing behavior as needed to make the whole thing
more solid. I trust they will, you assume they won't.

Jesus. The central idea is that nobody should care if they will,
won't or whatever. Enough is enough. It was a stupid idea. You
aren't supposed to have to constantly upgrade complex and
interdependent blobs of Javascript to keep up with other people's
misconceptions. Are you kidding?

I don't follow.

Then you are as irretrievably stupid as your shadow. After ten years,
they still don't get IE6/7. How many times has this stupid script
been rewritten, built up, torn down, drawn and quartered in the
meantime? How can you consider that a good thing when they have been
staring at the same critical bug all of that time, yet have done
nothing to put off disaster (which arrived in the form of IE8.)