jQuery Blog

When I try to subscribe to http://blog.jquery.com/ or http://blog.jquery.com/feed/ in Thunderbird, I receive an error stating that "the Feed URL is not a valid feed". Also, I couldn't find a feed URL at the jQuery Blog that validates at the W3C Feed Validation Service. I've seen multiple commenters at the jQuery Blog state that the feed is broken for them too. The following search results bring up some of these comments: https://google.com/search?q=site:blog.jquery.com+broken+feed+OR+rss I recall that this issue was acknowledged at some point by one of the contributors at the jQuery Blog. I don't recall who acknowledged it though, but I seem to recall that they stated it would be fixed eventually, which is why I didn't look for a solution until today.

It was bittersweet that it got overshadowed by jQuery. jQuery was also by some of my favorite people in tech. Another blast from the past is Visual jQuery. I don't know if it's online anywhere :/ https://github.com/jquery-archive/visual-jquery/blob/master/index.html https://blog.jquery.com/2006/09/02/taking-jquery-documentation-to-the-…

Here's the changelog, in case anyone is interested: https://blog.jquery.com/2024/02/06/jquery-4-0-0-beta/ I didn't get to do a lot of web development with jQuery, but I wrote a lof of React. jQuery seems simpler, and IMO easier to maintain and reason about for small-to-medium codebases. The snippets I see online are always very easy to follow, and it seems reasonable to me to use it if you're not building a full blown web application.

Huh - it does have an RSS feed though, it's just the one provided by Wordpress: http://blog.jquery.com/feed/ If you put http://blog.jquery.com/ into your feedreader it should be able to just automatically detect the feed (it's embedded in the page using a <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" .../>).

Possibly a good time for a reminder, folks: It's worth checking that if you're hotlinking to jQuery, it's the Google Hosted Libraries version.[1] It looks like code.jquery.com survived whatever the present situation is (otherwise a big chunk of the 'net would be finding out right about now), but it's been made clear for a while [2] that use of the code.jquery.com/* URLs isn't encouraged. [1]: https://developers.google.com/speed/libraries/devguide#jquery [2]: http://blog.jquery.com/2009/08/20/codejquerycom-redirected-to-google-a…

Correct, Paul. Here is a direct link to the official announcement from a week ago: http://blog.jquery.com/2011/01/31/jquery-15-released/ It only got 7 points and no discussion on HN (bad submission timing, no doubt), so I decided it was worth it to submit this post to let everyone could hear about 1.5 (I had missed it until today, myself).

jasonkester: in jQuery 1.4.3 a lot of work was done to make jQuery more modular. So you could take the peices of the library that you want and leave out the rest (i.e. effects). This isn't the recommendation of the jQuery Team but if you feel the library is getting too bloated you now have the option to cherry pick only the options of jQuery you'd like to use. Read the blog post here http://blog.jquery.com/2010/10/16/jquery-143-released/ Also we discussed it on the jQuery 1.4.3 episode of the jQuery Podcast http://podcast.jquery.com/2010/10/29/episode-38-jquery-1-4-3/

"... There is one minor detail... Unfortunately, the documentation for HAppS is cringeworthy ..." Nothing kills the urge to learn something quicker than incomplete docs. But it doesn't have to be this way. John Resig of JDoc fame, gets around this problem by concentrating on writing good documentation of the core API ~ http://blog.jquery.com/2006/09/02/taking-jquery-documentation-to-the-n… (along with doing stacks of talks, demos) leaving the gaps for others to fill ~ http://www.html.it/articoli/johnresig/index.html

I thought that was true, but checked a few months back and the advice seemed a bit more equivocal than that: > So, here’s the TL;DR for version 3.0 of the jQuery API: > * If you need support for the widest variety of browsers including IE8, Opera 12, Safari 5, and the like, use the jQuery-Compat 3.0.0 package. We recommend this version for most web sites, since it provides the best compatibility for all website visitors. > * If your web site is built only for evergreen leading-edge browsers, or is an HTML-based app contained in a webview (for example PhoneGap or Cordova) where you know which browser engines are in use, go for the jQuery 3.0.0 package. from http://blog.jquery.com/2014/10/29/jquery-3-0-the-next-generations/ I personally currently need to support IE9 which I wouldn't class as an "evergreen leading-edge browser". I was hoping for a more in depth compatibility chart that named specific versions.

There is a lot of misconceptions here. There are two parallel tracks of JQuery maintained, with _identical functionality_, one which supports IE8 and less, one which doesn't. JQuery team is supporting both. If they don't behave identically, that's a bug. If you don't need IE8 or less support, you can use the smaller higher-performance JQuery that doesn't support IE8. If you do need IE8 or before you use the other variant. Your code remains identical either way. JQuery still supports IE8 and less, and has announced no plans to stop. A lot of people are confused about this, and it's made more confusing by their mistakes about version labelling. At present, these two variants are JQuery 1.x (IE8 no problem), and JQuery 2.x (IE9 and above). There are identical parallel versions of each. 1.11.0 and 2.1.1 have identical functionality. Yes, this is super confusing, so going forward in the future, they will call the old-browser-compat variant "JQuery compat", and the no-old-browsers variant "JQuery", and version numbers will be sync'd. http://blog.jquery.com/2014/10/29/jquery-3-0-the-next-generations/ At present, the JQuery team is still committed to maintaining identical functionality in an old-browser-compat variant, and a newer no-old-browser variant, sync'd, for the indefinite future. And in fact they recommend the Compat version "for most web sites, since it provides the best compatibility for all website visitors." They could at some point in the future decide to…

jQuery is still being updated. https://blog.jquery.com/2026/01/17/jquery-4-0-0/ And so is COBOL. https://docs.rocketsoftware.com/bundle/visualcobol_rn9_90_pdf/resource…

Yep. jQuery 4.0 is in it's second beta[0] and seems to clock in at 27kB. And the "slim" version is <20kB. [0] https://blog.jquery.com/2024/07/17/second-beta-of-jquery-4-0-0/

jQuery has had plenty of breaking changes https://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/3.0/ https://jquery.com/upgrade-guide/3.5/. jQuery 4's breaking changes are massive https://blog.jquery.com/2024/02/06/jquery-4-0-0-beta/ The beauty of the web is that the underlying browers are incredibly backwards compatible. If you don't change jQuery or your post-post-post-modern framework, it's very likely continue to work just as they ever did.

> we will talk of react then as we talk of jQuery today. That it's still in active development with tons of users? https://blog.jquery.com/2023/08/28/jquery-3-7-1-released-reliable-tabl… God, I hope not.

jQuery first came-out long before browsers had querySelector: it used a 100% JS reimplementation of a CSS selector parser and evaluator, which was eventually spun-off into its own library: Sizzle.js: https://github.com/jquery/sizzle - Surprisingly, jQuery didn't fully remove Sizzle until 2019 ( https://blog.jquery.com/2019/04/10/jquery-3-4-0-released/ ) - if that seems surprisingly recent, don't forget that querySelector wasn't added to the DOM API until 2013 - with only IE11 supporting it: some places were still using even IE6 well past then, so it makes sense for jQuery to support it for so long. So using newer CSS selector features, like attribute value selectors, will work fine in post-Sizzle jQuery versions.

This brings back memories of jQuery's 2008 "Be a JavaScript ROCK STAR". https://blog.jquery.com/2008/08/29/jquerycom-site-redesign/ https://blog.jquery.com/2008/08/29/jquery-site-redesign-the-community-… https://blog.jquery.com/2008/08/29/death-to-javascript-rock-stars/comm… > Poor dude didn’t even last 24 hours.

It's kind of cool that the first post on jQuery blog was from Leah Silber in August of 1997. http://blog.jquery.com/1997/08/

Yup, this is why feature detection is better than version detection. jQuery changed their strategy in 2009: http://blog.jquery.com/2009/01/14/jquery-1-3-released/ "No More Browser Sniffing" Also, autoconf has a lot of faults, but as far as I recall it's firmly based on the philosophy of feature detectino vs. version detection. Maintainers of packages can write bad custom checks that test for features, but if you use the built-in autoconf checks, they're all about features. CMake on the other hand seems to use version detection more, which I don't like.

Here's the actual release blog post https://blog.jquery.com/2016/06/09/jquery-3-0-final-released/

I would suggest the release notes are a better link target: http://blog.jquery.com/2016/06/09/jquery-3-0-final-released/ Developers can figure out how to download it if they are interested.

Even if its a trusted https:// domain, it can still be compromised. (https://blog.jquery.com/2014/09/24/update-on-jquery-com-compromises/) Always review the script first.

Similarly, jQuery 2 shrunk 12% because of cutting out IE≤8 hacks: http://blog.jquery.com/2013/04/18/jquery-2-0-released/

This is a complicated set of trade offs and I've argued on both sides of the fence so I can't pretend to imply the decision is at all clear cut. But let me respond to a couple details here. First, the 'jQuery bloat' you're worried about looked like it was going to happen without Chrome native support: http://blog.jquery.com/2015/02/24/getting-on-point/. One of our goals in revisiting the decision was to avoid frameworks like jQuery having to include such polyfills to Chrome users. The other thing is that we shouldn't assume Chrome doing Pointer Events means we won't also improve Touch Events. That's a complicated decision influenced in large part by participation by other browser vendors in the standards process around Touch Events.

I would add another point, which is the strongest IMHO: using jQuery you won't incur any of the tons browser bugs fixed by jQuery, like for instance [this workaround to bugged Safari 7.1/8.0 querySelector](http://blog.jquery.com/2014/12/18/jquery-1-11-2-and-2-1-3-released-saf… which was just solved.

A couple days after this was posted to HN, the release of jQuery 1.11.2 and 2.1.3 offers an example of why you might want jQuery even if you might not need it. http://blog.jquery.com/2014/12/18/jquery-1-11-2-and-2-1-3-released-saf… > "A bug like this one emphasizes the benefit of using a library like jQuery rather than going directly to the DOM APIs."

I'm sure you're aware of this, but for others who may not know: the 2.x versions of jQuery dropped support for old browsers (IE 6, 7, 8) to reduce size (12% smaller) and complexity necessitated by being so backwards-compatible [0]. Thankfully we only support IE9+ where I work, so I grab the latest 2.x version these days. [0] - http://blog.jquery.com/2013/04/18/jquery-2-0-released/

That file is probably going to stay at v1.11.1 forever now: http://blog.jquery.com/2014/07/03/dont-use-jquery-latest-js/ (The blog post talks about /jquery-latest.js, but I'd imagine the same goes for all the version-number-free urls.)

They even had a blog post about why you shouldn't link to the latest CDN version. http://blog.jquery.com/2014/07/03/dont-use-jquery-latest-js/

No, the idea has pretty much always been that jQuery 1.9 and 2.0 would be feature-comparable, just with different sizes and supported browsers. See http://blog.jquery.com/2012/06/28/jquery-core-version-1-9-and-beyond/

lol for anyone else like me who didn't remember the reference, it was back in '08: http://blog.jquery.com/2008/08/29/death-to-javascript-rock-stars/