I thought this would include more drastic changes, but it seems that this is more house cleaning stuff, like, "nobody should really be using this in 2026". They are providing a library for someone who really likes jQuery and wants to use it over something like React. (Which is completely fine and reasonable.)
> This syntax is simple to write, but to our standards, doesn’t communicate intent really well. Did the author expect one or more js-widget elements on this page? Also, if we update our page markup and accidentally leave out the js-widget classname, will an exception in the browser inform us that something went wrong? By default, jQuery silently skips the whole expresion when nothing matched the initial selector; but to us, such behavior was a bug rather than a feature.
I completely agree with this, because I have been bitten so many times by this from subtle bugs. However I can see some other people not caring about any of it.
I already know that I am definitely not going to use jQuery in my personal projects, and there is no chance that my workspace does. (I much prefer letting a framework handle rendering for me based on data binding.) So none of that concerns me. But good luck to jQuery and anyone who sticks with it.
I took the EPFL course as well, although did not finish it. As someone who only had experience working with imperative programming and OOP stuff, it blew my mind -- I never knew you could write code like this. The course was great but a bit too fast for me at the time (part of the reason I did not complete it).
My work laptop -- a ThinkPad issued 3 years ago -- has seen multiple blue screens with modern standby. (It is almost always plugged in.). So IT disabled it, and now my machine always hibernates, which means that it usually takes 2 minutes to boot.
I don't see how a command line tool with 10 different flags is necessarily less "error prone" than UI. In fact, I have used many tools where a flag is confusing or has conflicts with another flag in an unexpected way, not to mention subtle issues like escaping.
I once had to pass along to the support team a command for one of our customers to run. It ultimately didn't work because someone along the chain A) autocorrected the spelling of the command name, B) converted the quotation marks to fancy “”, and C) converted the hyphen into some fancy dash.
It is easier to copy/paste. If the GUI has more than one step people might be confused. Also some GUIs are hard to see or read for people with vision handicaps.
Slightly off-topic: my PC always comes back to the login screen immediately after I manually use "sleep" from the power menu. I have to to the sleep thing again. Has anyone else run into this issue?
My Mac Mini M4 is on its way. Can't wait to stop dealing with this mess.
(Just this morning, I noticed that the login dialog for network drives, which has worked fine for decades, has misaligned text fields. I don't want to think how this could possibly happen.)
> my PC always comes back to the login screen immediately after I manually use "sleep" from the power menu. I have to to the sleep thing again. Has anyone else run into this issue?
Yes. By default moving the mouse or brushing the trackpad wakes the PC up... so when you have a fast machine it goes to sleep quicker than you can take your hand off the mouse. The solution is to turn off 'Allow device to wake' for the mouse in device manager. Well, that's been my experience anyway, there could be other causes I'm not aware of.
This happens regularly for me too, and Luke Lafreniere (from Linus Media Group) reported this too during WAN Show. He said that he sometimes has to hit sleep 3–4 times before his PC actually stays in sleep mode.
Half of the webapps maybe. Actual websites don't have a reason to use any of these features and most don't (except for fonts maybe, but removing those doesn't prevent the website from working).
Looks like the core behavior doesn't change, something that people complain about, e.g. https://github.blog/engineering/engineering-principles/remov...
> This syntax is simple to write, but to our standards, doesn’t communicate intent really well. Did the author expect one or more js-widget elements on this page? Also, if we update our page markup and accidentally leave out the js-widget classname, will an exception in the browser inform us that something went wrong? By default, jQuery silently skips the whole expresion when nothing matched the initial selector; but to us, such behavior was a bug rather than a feature.
I completely agree with this, because I have been bitten so many times by this from subtle bugs. However I can see some other people not caring about any of it.
I already know that I am definitely not going to use jQuery in my personal projects, and there is no chance that my workspace does. (I much prefer letting a framework handle rendering for me based on data binding.) So none of that concerns me. But good luck to jQuery and anyone who sticks with it.
reply