Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by jpkeisala | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jpkeisala·

Makes me wonder if it would make sense to have it built-in in browsers?

View on HN

It is built in to many browsers.

<node>.querySelector(...) and <node>.querySelectorAll(...)

If all you're using jQuery for is grabbing nodes from the DOM and attaching event listeners AND you don't care about old versions of IE then...

http://caniuse.com/queryselector

In a nut: querySelector[All] requires IE8, addEventListener requires IE9.

Just to be clear, jQuery's selector syntax supports many, many things that querySelector(All) does not.

http://api.jquery.com/category/selectors/jquery-selector-ext...

It's not many things, if you look carefully you will realize most of what is listed can be rewritten with a CSS selector. For example ":button" is the same has "button, input[type='button']". They are mostly just shorthand and that's not extra feature.

That would prevent you from using the latest version in older browsers.

Perhaps if it was implemented as a resource="jquery-1.8.0" attribute on the script tag, allowing browsers with a copy to load that instead of hitting the server.

If Sizzle is present in over half of all websites, it's already a standard and one would expect either Mozilla or Google to add native support for it; it seems like low-hanging fruit.

thats just silly talk. of course they would want that stuff natively. that is why they created the querySelectorAll method. If Moz/Goog gets it native in browser, that is less bytes that need to be transfered over the wire, and therefore faster websites.

No thanks. The jQuery single object design pattern is one that I do not like

Reply on news.ycombinator.com