[javascript] jQuery vs. javascript?

I recently stumbled upon some javascript forums (sadly, link is lost somewhere in the universe), where you could feel real hate against jQuery for not being... any good?

Most arguments seem to make sense actually.

Now, I really like jQuery, mostly for letting me concentrate on things I want to do rather on browser inconsistencies and it actually makes AJAXing with cool (or overused?) effects fun.

But if really is something rotten in the core of jQuery, I don't want to rely on it the way I actually... rely on it.

I don't want to start yet another argument over which framework is the best... but... Which framework is the best (joke)? As a case usage, think about small to medium web and it's administration.

I'm just trying to figure out, if stuff in some framework or pure javascript with few mine functions really makes difference.

Edit:

I actually tried to have a normal objective discusssion over pros and cons of:

1. Using a framework over pure javascript and
2. jQuery vs. others,

Since jQuery seems to be easiest to work with with the quickest learning curve. However, some people just don't understand it and think that I'm starting yet another flame (what I am not). I am actually voting to reopen this question.

Also I'm really interested in:

• Does jQuery heavily rely on browser sniffing? Could that be a potential problem in the future? Why?
• I found plenty JS-selector engines, are there any AJAX and FX libraries?
• Is there any reason (besides browser sniffing and personal "hate" against John Resig) why jQuery is wrong?

jQuery actually, as most used, stands for other frameworks also.

• Does jQuery heavily rely on browser sniffing? Could be that potential problem in future? Why?

No - there is the $.browser method, but it's deprecated and isn't used in the core.

• I found plenty JS-selector engines, are there any AJAX and FX libraries?

Loads. jQuery is often chosen because it does AJAX and animations well, and is easily extensible. jQuery doesn't use it's own selector engine, it uses Sizzle, an incredibly fast selector engine.

• Is there any reason (besides browser sniffing and personal "hate" against John Resig) why jQuery is wrong?

No - it's quick, relatively small and easy to extend.

For me personally it's nice to know that as browsers include more stuff (classlist API for example) that jQuery will update to include it, meaning that my code runs as fast as possible all the time.

Read through the source if you are interested, http://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.4.3.js - you'll see that features are added based on the best case first, and gradually backported to legacy browsers - for example, a section of the parseJSON method from 1.4.3:

return window.JSON && window.JSON.parse ?
    window.JSON.parse( data ) :
    (new Function("return " + data))();

As you can see, if window.JSON exists, the browser uses the native JSON parser, if not, then it avoids using eval (because otherwise minfiers won't minify this bit) and sets up a function that returns the data. This idea of assuming modern techniques first, then degrading to older methods is used throughout meaning that new browsers get to use all the whizz bang features without sacrificing legacy compatibility.

"I actually tried to had a normal objective discusssion over pros and cons of 1., using framework over pure javascript and 2., jquery vs. others, since jQuery seems to be easiest to work with with quickest learning curve."

Using any framework because you don't want to actually learn the underlying language is absolutely wrong not only for JavaScript, but for any other programming language.

"Is there any reason (besides browser sniffing and personal "hate" against John Resig) why jQuery is wrong?"

Most of the hate agains it comes from the exaggerated fanboyism which pollutes forums with "use jQuery" as an answer for every single JavaScript question and the overuse which produces code in which simple statements such as declaring a variable are done through library calls.

Nevertheless, there are also some legit technical issues such as the shared guilt in producing illegible code and overhead. Of course those two are aggravated by the lack of developer proficiency rather than the library itself.

Jquery like any other good JavaScript frameworks supplies you with functionality independent of browser platform wrapping all the intricacies, which you may not care about or don't want to care about.

I think using a framework is better instead of using pure JavaScript and doing all the stuff from scratch, unless you usage is very limited.

I definitely recommend JQuery!

Thanks

Jquery VS javascript, I am completely against the OP in this question. Comparison happens with two similar things, not in such case.

Jquery is Javascript. A javascript library to reduce vague coding, collection commonly used javascript functions which has proven to help in efficient and fast coding.

Javascript is the source, the actual scripts that browser responds to.

Personally i think you should learn the hard way first. It will make you a better programmer and you will be able to solve that one of a kind issue when it comes up. After you can do it with pure JavaScript then using jQuery to speed up development is just an added bonus.

If you can do it the hard way then you can do it the easy way, it doesn't work the other way around. That applies to any programming paradigm.