Based on my observations,
- But not every jQuery user is in the above group. Many developers knows the DOM API and JS very well. When used correctly, jQuery helps these developers to be much more productive than doing raw DOM manipulations.
- Therefore, I can understand why jQuery is disallowed. Maybe, it’s not about trends — I wouldn’t assume that. Maybe, they want to find people who really knows JS/DOM API. People who can write apps without depending on jQuery.
- But I also find a blanket ban on jQuery stupid. In my opinion a good test shouldn’t impose arbitrary restrictions and discriminate against a library. Instead, they should have used a problem where raw JS knowledge is required to solve it.
About the article,
- I find it to be filled with blanket statements, such as “jQuery is better than React” and “You don’t even need React.”
- For example, the site we are building may not necessarily always be a “simple disposable site that won’t be around in a year.”
- Therefore, the statement “You don’t even need React.” ignores the context and isn’t entirely accurate.
- I find these kind of statements counter-productive, leading to an unnecessarily controversial post. I find no need in over-exaggeration to get a point across. “You might not even need React” should be enough.