gamera wrote:
> hj wrote:
>> I *REALLY* don't understand the concern about performance. Do you need
>> to do this within an inner nested loop? How many rows, average and
>> maximum, are likely to be candidates for this? Unless you're including
>> jQuery only for its easy selection capability for *this* purpose
>> (i.e., not for any other uses elsewhere in your scripts), then it
>> almost certainly is better, for long term maintainability, to use
>> jQuery rather than native methods. I'd probably cache the reference to
>> '#x', and use that:
> i would say the opposite: for long term maintainability,
> is better to not rely on a third party library to perform such
> a simple task. Also, we should use more ES5, since
> also m$ endorsed it, writing polyfills when/if necessary.
I'm not sure why Microsoft's endorsement should make a difference. We
know their history with standards bodies.
> var nodes = document.querySelectorAll('#x tr.zebra')
> , i = 0
> , node
>
> while ( node = nodes[ i++ ] )
> node.classList.remove('zebra')
So what do you suggest to polyfill querySelectorAll? It seems to me
that if you introduce a substantive QSA polyfill, you're already
relying on a large library for this simple task.
-- Scott
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
