jQuery crashes again
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: FAQ Topic - How do I generate a random integer from 1 to n? (2010-04-03)
Next: active (x)html newsgroup?
From: Hans-Georg Michna on 3 Apr 2010 06:06 On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:34:24 -0400, David Mark wrote: >And what do you mean "does not exist?" Do you think the OP imagined the >error or is making up stories to smear jQuery? That was certainly not my intention. In fact, I wish I had a version of jQuery that worked well. I would probably use it for some performance-uncritical pages. The failures after the jQuery upgrade took me by surprise. Although I had seen the warnings here, I believed that I only used jQuery casually and lightly, without going anywhere near its limits. It still failed. To make it entirely clear---I had used jQuery 1.3.2 on a few pages with good success. After some learning and tuning the pages worked perfectly. They and jQuery did exactly what I wanted them to do (although I must say that it was not always very easy to find out what exactly jQuery would do). Then I upgraded jQuery to its latest version 1.4.2. Immediately these pages failed. Hans-Georg
From: rf on 3 Apr 2010 06:54 "Hans-Georg Michna" <hans-georgNoEmailPlease(a)michna.com> wrote in message news:b11er5lcs8q0cd26jdgoigd12emqjsetco(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:27:03 -0400, David Mark wrote: > Unfortunately several of my web sites run on the Content > Management System Drupal ( http://winhlp.com/ , > http://elephanttrust.org/ , http://resaf.org/ , etc.), and > Drupal itself uses jQuery, so I can't get totally clean. I have a couple of new clients who have legacy web sites created with Drupal and the unfortunate jQuery. In both cases I have been fortunate to be able to convince them that this is simply not the way to build web sites. I pointed out, and demonstrated, that jQuery is simply not cross browser. And I pointed out, and demonstrated, that Drupal is simply not a CMS for the average web site owner. It may be OK for web site producers, but not for my clients, who expect to be able to input their own content easily and be in total control of their site, and know what they are doing. They have both agreed to the re-engineering of their sites from, almost, the ground up. A while ago I had a potential client who did not agree with me in the above. I didn't take the job. His web site still sucks, badly.
From: Gregor Kofler on 3 Apr 2010 08:16 Hans-Georg Michna meinte: > I have not tried to analyze why the new jQuery version crashed > in this page. Guess it doesn't matter much. My impression is > that pretty much every non-trivial, JavaScript-rich page that > uses jQuery does not survive the latest jQuery upgrade. Recently I had a lengthy discussion with a customer, who wanted to replace my - perfectly working - custom JS with jQuery due to the "big community", the "sort of de-facto standard", the "future support". He was somewhat irritated by my hefty response. Sigh. Gregor -- http://www.gregorkofler.com
From: David Mark on 3 Apr 2010 15:30 Garrett Smith wrote: > David Mark wrote: >> Garrett Smith wrote: >>> Hans-Georg Michna wrote: >>>> I had upgraded the jQuery module and forgot to test one of my >>>> web pages that uses it. Sure enough, it no longer worked and >>>> copped out with a JavaScript error (akin to a Java null pointer >>>> exception :-). >>>> >>> It would probably help to provide more details. >> >> And who would that help exactly? >> > The answer to that question is unknown at this point. No it isn't. Nobody. > >>> What error message, what >>> the original code was doing. >> >> Why would that matter at this point? As mentioned, the OP came to his >> senses and dumped jQuery. Problem solved. >> >>> It is either your fault or jquery fault or for all anyone knows, the >>> problem does not exist. >> > [anti-jq-propaganda] Propaganda? Who are you Matt Kruse now? Gee, I don't care if my query engine can't read documents straight; I don't care about certain attributes (the ones they got wrong); etc., etc. Going on three years now. It's a bullshit script, plain and simple. Using such a script on the Web is *insanity*. And I left out the most important bit. If the OP hadn't relied on a complex, ever-shifting, interdependent and incompetently written GP script, he would not have had to deal with upgrading such a thing. Get it? >> >> And what do you mean "does not exist?" Do you think the OP imagined the >> error or is making up stories to smear jQuery? > Did I post that? No, I didn't. You apparently can't interpret your own implications. > > The bug is yet unsubstantiated. See also: > http://www.jibbering.com/faq/notes/posting/#ps1DontWork LOL. An exception is an exception.
From: David Mark on 3 Apr 2010 16:09
Hans-Georg Michna wrote: > On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:27:03 -0400, David Mark wrote: > >> Kudos on the sanity, Hans-Georg. If only more people would get the >> picture (or at least rent it!) :) > > Even if I hadn't been warned, I should have begun to wonder why > all of my jQuery-equipped pages failed after the jQuery upgrade. > Even the most clueless person would have to wonder. You'd think. :) > > Next I'll do is search all my web sites for references to jQuery > and, if I can't find any, remove jQuery itself. Very good idea. > > Unfortunately several of my web sites run on the Content > Management System Drupal ( http://winhlp.com/ , > http://elephanttrust.org/ , http://resaf.org/ , etc.), and > Drupal itself uses jQuery, so I can't get totally clean. That's a shame. You should stop using Drupal if it can't work without an "assist" from jQuery. I wonder how often _they_ upgrade the thing. > > The jQuery phenomenon needs a little more analysis. Not really. The work was done back in Fall of 2007. Anyone still using it has not been paying attention. The "phenomenon", which clearly reached its apex about a year ago, is due to disingenuous marketing. > I think it > is based on the fact that jQuery looks very attractive at first. Yes, to people who have no clue what they are doing (or what the script is doing for them). > When you try it with simple things (and ignore performance and > other issues), it allows good looking code with its method > chaining, it appears to work nicely and to save you some coding. The chaining thing is ill-advised and is not unique to jQuery. Any JS code can do it easily enough. And if it saves you time coding, it indicates you haven't spent enough time coding in the first place (i.e. you should already have code stockpiled to perform the basic tasks that jQuery attempts to help you with). And, as you have seen, such savings are fleeting (i.e. you pay them back with interest as soon as either the browsers or the script changes). > So many people, including myself once, fall for it all too > quickly. Its superficial and misleading simplicity is, at first, > attractive. Exactly. > > Once jQuery has a significant market share, it is more difficult > to dislodge, so I guess it will remain a factor for some time to > come. It is clearly self-destructing at this point. The "releases" are getting closer together in frantic efforts to "keep up" with the ever-increasing "major" browsers (and they are dismissing older browsers with abandon as well). Pretty soon they'll be trying to rewrite it daily and only "supporting" browsers that came out yesterday. Those sorts of symptoms indicate a terminal condition. > > Anyway, it reminds me of something I've been saying for years, > which I named the Rat Effect. See: http://winhlp.com/node/716 > Sounds appropriate. I've often referred to jQuery as a rat in lucite. :) |