I've never touched JQuery. I learned Javascript, and by the time I was comfortable enough with that I didn't really want to have to be bothered with an unfamiliar syntax. If I've ever needed to accomplish something repetitively, I've written my own little (and probably very badly-optimised) JS library - that's definitely helped me understand more about JS than using JQuery ever would.
Counterpoint: I understand Javascript and the DOM all too well, and coding my own "poorly-optimized" library for things that could be handled in one line of jQuery strikes me as a huge waste of time.
OK, I won't be self-deprecating on HN in the future then... it's not poorly optimised. The point I was trying to make is that I learned far more about how Javascript works by learning the language first and thoroughly than I ever would have by learning how to use JQuery. My particular area of work means that cross-browser compatibility isn't a problem - hence writing my own library that might not be compatible with older browsers is not an issue, and it is also better for my own edification.
Upvoted. I hope I didn't come across as blasting you. I agree that hand-coding your own Javascript is the best way to learn, and a front-end developer should know pure Javascript as well as jQuery. That said, for real-world applications, a stable third-party library is a better idea.
Suppose you want your website to behave consistently in the latest three versions of the four most popular browsers. You have two choices: 1) try to do it yourself, 2) use a Javascript library.
Option 1 has the following drawbacks: a) you'll need to set up an environment in which to test 12 different browsers, b) you'll need a few years to learn the nuances, annoyances, and bugs in 12 different examples of badly written software.
Option 2 has the following drawbacks: a) you'll need to know where to find the library documentation, b) you'll need a few days to learn how to use the library.
The likely outcome of option 1 is that you will eventually get your site to behave consistently in the two or three browsers you have tested. The likely outcome of option 2 is that you will spend your time working on interesting things.
Given that you know nothing about where I work or the nature of my work, that's a strange assumption to make. Not everyone is writing public-facing web apps designed for IE5 and up.
Ok fine, so you write inward-facing web apps designed for Chromium 7 and below. Still I feel sorry for the the poor chap having to maintain your library which, you mentioned before, served mostly so that you could learn Javascript better rather than what should've been a driving factor when making the decision - the business case.
I maintain the library! I work for such a small organisation, and this library is deployed on such a tiny web app, that the fact it wasn't built using JQuery or whatever is utterly inconsequential.
You might be better off in the long run. I have this nagging feeling that JQuery was a light-hearted joke about deprecating loops and local variables that just got out of hand.
