Why does jQuery suck so much

a pity!

  1. Forums
  2. > Comments
  3. ›OpenSource
  4. ›All comments on the article
  5. ›Flash alternative: Firefox gets ...
  1. theme

New topic Change view


  1. a pity!

    Author: x-any 02.10.13 - 13:32

    especially when Flash leaves the stage as a foreign body of the Internet, this technology does not have to be kept alive artificially.
    Some companies have already lost my sales potential. I am unwilling to install and run Flash or Silverlight. If content cannot be displayed anywhere because this functionality is required, I'm gone.
    And the PDF support in Firefox is annoying because of its poor performance.



    Edited 1 time, last on 02.10.13 13:33 by x-arbitrary.

  2. Re: what a shame!

    Author: compulsorily registered 02.10.13 - 15:54

    I also think, I'm glad that flash is finally dead, FF comes with such shit that only makes the browser slower.

  3. Re: what a shame!

    Author: Mr. Lich 02.10.13 - 16:22

    You will certainly be able to deactivate that.
    Wait for the release notes first.

  4. Re: what a shame!

    Author: vol1 02.10.13 - 16:24

    How is pdf.js not performing? Have no stuttering ..
    Does it use a lot of RAM?

  5. Re: what a shame!

    Author: sticky 02.10.13 - 16:28

    It's stupid that there is simply no alternative for content providers. Just because HTML5 can play videos does not mean that it is a good successor.

    There are still so many problems with integrated advertising that I don't know of any provider who has switched completely to HTML5. See also Youtube, why don't they have all the HTML5-based content available yet? because simply too much functionality is still missing.

    Please don't get me wrong: Flash is and will remain a crutch, but it is currently the only plugin that meets the requirements of advertising-financed video streamers. And as long as there is nothing else, Flash will continue to be present on the market.

  6. Re: what a shame!

    Author: zonk 02.10.13 - 17:38

    There is something in there, but at least you can get rid of the plugin.

  7. Re: what a shame!

    Author: Dadie 02.10.13 - 18:05

    Oh yeah ... and the mutations and canker sores called JavaScript and HTML5 are so much better of course. There is a reason why frameworks like jQuery are so popular. Nobody wants to query and check all the special cases and special functions of the browser.

    And of course you also need more and more system functions in JavaScript and HTML5. Everything then ends up in a sandbox, a sandbox, a sandbox, but please with nice abstraction and performant it should be.

    From my point of view, I don't see any difference between using Flash then and JavaScript today. Back then, Flash was often used for navigation bars. That of course marginalized people with little bandwidth, disabled people or people who do not use Windows. With JavaScript we have the whole thing in green. The 5MB jQuery is not necessarily sucked so quickly with your DSL light. And disabled people or their software are also not particularly enthusiastic about JavaScript or dynamic navigation bars.

    When it comes to mobile use, it's no better. Because this dynamic reloading sucks incredibly on the bandwidth, the volume and the loading time. If I already have a latency of sometimes 2 seconds or more anyway, it annoys me all the more when I first have to load a page, which then has to load a script, which then asks a page to get the information the page to generate the actual page via the script. And of course there is always a timeout which is of course almost never checked by the JavaScript.

    JavaScript is a beautiful technology just like Flash is. But it doesn't help if both are only used to exclude the visually impaired or if something flashes, moves or the browser mechanics are overridden. I like it when I really click "Back" in the browser to go. Only the many great web designers seem to see it differently with their JavaScript orgies.

  8. Re: what a shame!

    Author: vol1 03.10.13 - 04:33

    My jQuery min.js is 56KB. With bzip compression, or whatever that means, it's definitely a corner smaller. Also causes no problems on my smartphone.

    You can surf on my website without JS ...

  9. Re: what a shame!

    Author: gisu 03.10.13 - 23:09

    Dadie wrote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Oh yeah ... And the mutations and cancerous sores called JavaScript and HTML5
    > are of course so much better. There is a reason why frameworks
    > how jQuery are so popular. Nobody wants all the special cases and
    > Query and check special functions of the browser.

    Do you know the difference between an open system and a closed system like Flash?

    > And of course you need more and more system functions in JavaScript
    > and HTML5. Everything then ends up in a sandbox, a sandbox, a sandbox
    > but please with nice abstraction and performant it should then also
    > be.

    > From my point of view, I don't see any difference between using
    > Flash then and JavaScript today. Back then, Flash was liked for
    > Navigation bars used. Of course, that just limited people with little
    > Bandwidth, disabled people or people who don't use Windows are pretty exhausted.
    > With JavaScript we have the whole thing in green. The 5MB jQuery sucks you too
    > not necessarily that fast with his DSL light. And disabled people or theirs
    > Software are also rather not enthusiastic about JavaScript or dynamic
    > Navigation bars.

    You can tell that you have a clue. 5MB jQuery you can't even do it with jQuery UI. DSL Light has more problems with Flash videos that simply stream a 20mb video via autostart.
    Aria is also a foreign word to you, just as you are not familiar with the fact that screen readers can now handle JS.

    > It is not better for mobile use either. Because this dynamic
    > Reloading sucks incredibly on the bandwidth, the volume and the
    > Loading time. If I already have a latency of sometimes 2 seconds or more
    > I get all the more upset once I have a page
    > has to load, which then has to load a script, which then has to load another page
    > asks for the information on the page about the script the actual
    > Generate page. And of course there is always a timeout of the
    > Of course, it is almost never checked by the JavaScript.
    >
    > JavaScript is a beautiful technology just like Flash is. But brings
    > nothing if both are only used to exclude the visually impaired
    > or so that something flashes, moves or the browser mechanics except
    > Force is applied. I like it when I hit the "back" button in the browser
    > to really go "back". Only that the many seem great
    > See web designers differently with their JavaScript orgies.

    This is the only way to exclude the visually impaired without JS, but that's not the fault of HTML or JS. Maybe you should take a look at what JS can do today before you spit poison and bile.

    Flash is dead, Adobe buried it itself.

  1. theme

New topic Change view


To comment, please log in or register. You also have to go to Forum have assigned a username. To the login

© 1997-2021 Golem.de. All rights reserved.