JQuery 1.11 and 2.1 Released
blog.jquery.com
blog.jquery.com
event.returnValue is deprecated. Please use the standard event.preventDefault() instead.gem 'jquery-rails', github: 'onpaws/jquery-rails'
event.returnValue is deprecated. Please use the standard event.preventDefault() instead.You basically get a unification of backend and frontend languages -- both using JS, the same dependency and versioning system, the same way to require modules, and of course the same code. Being able to use the same libraries on the backend and frontend is huge. (But not required. Browserify/npm are still useful if you don't use Node.js.)
And it's cleaner. Relying on the Node.js dependency system means you can just import modules the same was in Node.js, instead of maintaining an ugly "vendor/" folder where you manually copy things like jQuery.
I suspect (I haven't gotten this far yet) that you can more easily unit-test your code this way. You just need a "headless" browser environment (using jsdom etc.) that's compatible jQuery.
Browserify is actually very small tool. It leaves all package management to npm, and all Browserify does is to generate a JS file that includes all your package.json-specified modules in neatly namedspaced dependency-initialization order, ready to be imported using a script tag.
There is also Bower [2] from Twitter. Unlike Browserify, Bower is mainly a wrapper around npm that acts as a separate package manager, but doesn't actually implement the glue needed to import any JS on the client side.
[2] http://bower.io
It was actually being used on a few minor pages, and still worked on modern browsers.
we've got to rewrite 4 plugins due to API breaks to get anywhere near this version.
Will never import any community plugins again. jQuery and jQuery UI only.
To some extent there's not much you can do, the risk is just part of the game; you're making a tradeoff, risking future lock-in to abandonware, by gaining produtivity by using someone elses shared code.
But the one thing you CAN do is avoid using projects with restrictive licenses. It takes something pretty exceptional ly valuable (AND with all the signs of being a project with legs) to get me to use something with a restrictive license. If it's got a sufficiently flexible license AND is popular, it's pretty likely someone (if not me) is going to step in to do the bare minimum of changes neccessary for security or dependency upgrades.
The other thing one can do is try not to use projects with really poorly written/organized code -- cause it's an additional barrier to someone else patching it once it's abandonware. But that's harder to judge correctly, and anyway if the thing is really useful and difficult for me to reinvent myself, I'm likely to ignore perceived bad code quality and use it anyway.
Could you provide some rules of thumb for how to quickly "avoid using projects with restrictive licenses" (short of getting a law degree). I assume there are a handful of popular licenses that you just know are what you are looking for (e.g. BSD, Apache, GPL2, or something) and you look for that. Otherwise you scan for specific restrictive or unrestrictive verbage. For the uninitiated, could you explain what you are looking for?
http://jsperf.com/jquery-show-hide-vs-css-display-none-block...
Show()/hide() is still very expensive because it checks the visibility before setting it.
What surprised me though is that $elem.css('display', 'none') is equally slow. That smells like an upcoming pull request.
$elem[0].style.display='none' is still the way to go.
Remember, however, that many of your "comparable" test cases are making assumptions that jQuery can't make. For example, .show() sets the display property back to what it was before a previous .hide(), to do that it has to query the display property when hiding. If you try some ideas for fixes, the unit tests should indicate whether you've run afoul of such problems.
Is the performance of .show()/.hide() causing issues? Under what conditions?
Profiling shows that it is not one big function but many small which accumulate. The camelCase function alone takes 3% of the speed in Chrome, the internal access() structure takes nearly half the time itself.
Speed could be achieved with the byte cost of specialised functions for easy cases like css(key, value) where you can skip most of the checks and queuing.
This shortcut for show/hide is roughly 16x faster and should remain more or less so even after extending it to cache the previous style and adding common exceptions for <tr>, !important, etc. Shortcuts like those could be used if it is clear that the chosen function signature is very easy like $('p').css('display', 'none') so all other checks can be skipped but would add to the payload of jQuery.
$.fn.cssDisplay=function(show) {
var d=show?'block':typeof show==='undefined'?'':'none',
length=this.length, i=0;
for(;i<length;) {
this[i++].style.display=d;
}
return this;
}