[w4]

Not relevant to this package in particular, but this line of reasoning baffles me every time I see HN comments about JQuery. So many posters argue against the use of JQuery because of its package size and bandwidth constraints, while simultaneously advocating for SPA frameworks that use orders of magnitude more bandwidth. Absolutely ridiculous cargo cult reasoning.

[nashashmi]

Two different types of people. One wants to create lightweight applications. The other wants lightweight development.

Lightweight development for lightweight applications is a bit of an oxymoron at this time.

[hecanjog]

IMHO the way to achieve this is to pay the upfront cost of building out a small framework for your application, which has lightweight abstractions for common patterns. With some design, a small internal API can be as nice to work with as the kitchen sink abstractions. (Much nicer, too, when it comes to maintenance and debugging.)

[not_a_bot_4sho]

> Lightweight development for lightweight applications is a bit of an oxymoron at this time.

Apt description

[leptons]

We're using jQuery on our sites which score 100% on all Google Lighthouse pagespeed tests. A smaller version of jQuery really wouldn't matter to us, our pages are already extremely fast to load and score amazingly well on any page speed/SEO test.

About the only place I could see a benefit from this library is maybe in embedded, where space really is an issue. I've created a few IoT devices with web interfaces that are built-into the tiny ROM of the device. A 6KB library is nice, but I'm using Preact with everything gzipped in one single .html file and my very complex web app hosted in the IoT device is about 50KB total size gzipped - including code, content, SVG images and everything, so jQuery or a JQ substitute isn't going to be a better solution for me, but maybe it fits for someone that doesn't know how to set up the tooling for a react/preact app.

[Rapzid]

To add, I really try to minimize external deps but if first-load speed were absolutely critical loading from jQuery CDN would increase odds of it already being cached..

Meh for most places I've worked though.

[happytoexplain]

A. You're assuming they are largely the same people by extrapolating from your observations. It's impossible to actually know.

B. Your two examples provide different things. This is like saying it's OK to include any old multi-megabyte dependency if a site loads a couple mb worth of images. There's no reason to stop considering the size of the small parts just because you decided you need some large parts. Things add up - that will never stop being a useful thing to remember, in any context.