jQuery

[Smylers]

Mallory van Achterberg writes:

> Ah, jQuery, something I try to avoid except when I can't.
> http://www.doxdesk.com/updates/2009.html#u20091116-jquery

Thanks for that. Is there any decent combined documentation for
JavaScript + jQuery, pointing to whichever of the two is superior for a
particular task?

I've been liking using jQuery for little bits of (optional) user
interface polish, but keep being caught out by not knowing proper
JavaScript (or Dom).

Sometimes I'm surprised by jQuery not having a way of solving a
particular task, only then to discover that JavaScript itself has a way
of doing it (so jQuery doesn't need to). But it doesn't seem much fun to
learn all of JavaScript, including the awkward parts that I don't need
to know because jQuery does them better, in order to find these.[*1]

Indeed, it seems to defeat much of the purpose of a nice easy-to-use
abstraction layer if to use it you need to first know the awkward
low-level way.

> So there ends up being lots of plain Javascript in my jQuery when
> $work says "here we do jQuery".

Which things would you say are better in JavaScript? What should I
learn?

> Instead of, say, jQuip.

Oooh, what's that? Should I be using it instead of jQuery?

Thanks

Smylers

[*1]  Also, I tried JavaScript at some point circa 1999, and I think I
may be allergic to it.

-- 
http://twitter.com/Smylers2