Knowing how to do it without jQuery makes me appreciate jQuery that much more.
-- Brandon Aaron On 8/16/07, Jonathan Sharp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/16/07, Stephan Beal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Aug 16, 7:39 pm, Mitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *snip* > > .... Simon Willison apparently has a > > similar hang-up about jQuery. And, like i am in my hate-hate > > relationship with Python, he's in the minority. > > > Minor detail, it wasn't Simon Willson who made that comment, it as Thor > Larholm (http://larholm.com/about-2/) > > I think one aspect of Thor's argument can be proved true with a grain of > salt and that is learning jQuery isn't a replacement for learning JS/DOM for > SOME people. > > Two different situations to take into account: > 1) Average j(an|o)e want's to spice up h(er|is) page and add a cool tabbed > interface, a jQuery minute(TM) later and they're done > 2) Application developer is building an enterprise solution/product and > utilizing jQuery. jQuery greatly speeds up development but underlying > knowledge of JS/DOM is of the utmost importance. > > Having come from a strong JS background prior to jQuery, jQuery doesn't > replace my thought process in regards to the DOM, it enhances it taking > development time from hours of tedius coding to a jQuery minute(TM). The > knowledge of the "pure form" is (I'll go as far as to say) required. So I > can see his argument for not having those he's mentoring learn it, but that > doesn't mean he shouldn't use it. This can go back to the argument in CS > majors of students complaining that they have to learn memory > management/heaps/stacks/registeres/etc when Java doesn't use any of them. > The thing that ends up distinguishing good from great programmers is their > underlying knowledge of the abstraction layers they're using. Thus we're > right back at Simon Wilson's argument for learning the underlying black box. > > > -js > > http://jQueryMinute.com (my host is having some network problems...) >
