Short term, this raises the learning curve (if I was a newb, my eyes would bleed at having 5+ ways to attach events), but long-term, this is a major win for code cleanliness.
I think it may increase initial confusion when first learning jQuery however a thorough tutorial explaining the differences/similarities and reasoning behind the event names would ideally clear up any confusion. Although the easiest path to understanding how to use the calls for daily use would be to have the user forgo all old event methods and just focus on using .on and .off (assuming they'll never have to use a jQuery version less than 1.7 which is unlikely).
Are people still using this library? With the emergence of mobile browsers which have great HTML5 support, and the decline of aging browsers like IE, I wonder does jQuery have much of a future? I don't need it to handle ajax queries and canvas, and websockets, and backbone has better data handling etc...
> With the emergence of mobile browsers which have great HTML5 support, and the decline of aging browsers like IE, I wonder does jQuery have much of a future?
HTML5 has very little relevance to jQuery (the querySelector API is pretty much the only one of real interest), jQuery is fundamentally a better API for DOM manipulations. As long as the DOM exists, so will jQuery (seriously, have you ever written a raw DOM web application?).
Not to mention the jQuery ecosystem, which provides a number of "headstart" plugins.
> I don't need it to handle ajax queries
XMLHttpRequest is quite far from the easiest API to use correctly, jQuery makes that very convenient. Also, deferreds.
> and backbone has better data handling etc...
Erm... you do know backbone uses (if not mandates) jQuery for view interactions right?
You have never used jQuery and like your made up statistic also have no idea what you're talking about. jQuery has never been more popular and HTML5 will only increase its popularity.
I'm not sure why wavephorm was downvoted. He rised valid point - on modern browsers a lot of functionality offered by jQuery could be easily achieved with pure DOM/CSS3/WebSockets.
In the upcoming years I expect jQuery to be replaced by more specialized and interoperable microframeworks like those listed on http://microjs.com/
Sure, but it's going to be a long time since we have all modern browsers. At the moment people want modern functionality, so tools like jQuery are invaluable.
At the same time I think jQuery sees this divide as well, which is why Sizzle has been separated.
What I have seen of jQuery falls into two camps, people who use it instead of basic DOM code like document.getElementBy Id, and horrible ungodly spaghetti code.
Funny how all the jQuery fanboys are quick to downvote, question my knowlege, and ignore my question simultaneously.
> Funny how all the jQuery fanboys are quick to downvote, question my knowlege, and ignore my question simultaneously.
The only "questions" you asked are 1. whether people still use jQuery (it's one of the most popular DOM-manipulation libraries out there and growing) and whether jQuery has a future, in the middle of confused ranting betraying a deep lack of familiarity not only with the library itself (which can be excused) but with the purpose and role of that library as well (which really can't, at least do your homework).
> question my knowlege
One can only question your knowledge when you consistently demonstrate a complete lack thereof.
You're underestimating the appeal of sheer convenience. jQuery is convenient because it's terse, it's expressive and it has bloatloads of community support.
Most "standard" javascript APIs (especially the W3C DOM) are absolutely dreadful to work with, especially if you like modern javascript (a smalltalk-ish blend of "functional" and object-oriented javascript).
If IE falls under 5% of market share (not like it'll ever happen), jQuery will simply remove the now-irrelevant pieces of code. My proof for this is simple: http://zeptojs.com/
This is a 5k library aiming to implement the full jQuery API while restricting its compatibility to mobile webkit browsers.
As long as there is more than a single browser (and each Webkit port out there counts as a supplementary browser), jQuery will thrive.
Seriously? In my experience the question is closer to "is there anyone who is not using jQuery?". Handling feature variance among browsers is nice, but far from the only reason I see people picking jQuery for projects. Many people add in other libraries for specific features, but jQuery seems to be the base that most start building upon.
As long as people continue to use browsers that are old or different, and people want to write one-size-fits-all JavaScript. Which means, for many years into the future, at least. So, to answer your question quantitatively, people are using jQuery more than ever:
