You can't use jQuery without knowing ECMAScript, but you can use it without knowing W3C-standard DOM API. This technically means you can use it without knowing JavaScript, so long as you define JavaScript as the sum of ECMAScript and DOM API. I'm assuming that the so-called guru implicitly defines it as such.
Without JavaScript, how would you prefer that Internet-connected interactive applications be deployed to users of PCs that run an operating system different from yours?
If you are developing an app that hyperar believes "should not be on the web", then how should you reach users of Windows without "writ[ing] code for Windows"? In all but the most niche cases, charging $700 for the app and shipping a free Mac mini with it is out of the question.
[Raw JavaScript] is good, it is fast, and there are VERY TINY inconsistencies between browsers, even old IEs, unless it is DOM-crap or stuff relating to inputs and CSS rules. Everything else is FINE.
Except that's exactly why people use jQuery: to ensure that "DOM-crap or stuff relating to inputs" works for all viewers.
Learning Javascript is a ghetto because so many entry-level people, who are ignorant and arrogant as shit, write bad tutorials, give anti-pro tips, and generally don't have any fucking clue what they're doing.
In common use, "JavaScript" refers to both the DOM API or the ECMAScript language that calls it. To which are you referring? If the latter, inside ECMAScript is a beautiful language struggling to get out. JavaScript: The Good Parts exposes this language.
FWIW (for those less experienced devs/engineers), most JS frameworks are bullshit, replicating functionality found in the browser.
Only if you are willing to fire customers who use outdated browsers on unsupported operating system. Some of this functionality isn't in IE before 9.
I'm not advocating reinventing the wheel, I am advocating not using a wheel when you walk next door.
Some people routinely use a wheel to walk next door. Likewise, on the web, it's wise to make your web application accessible to people with disabilities.
CSS, Javascript, and HTML are a clusterfuck compared to native-development and provide a worse experience.
How is "This application is not available for your platform" a better experience?
Business app?, desktop, using web services.
Good luck getting users of anything but a Mac to run an app developed on and for a Mac. Web is more cross-platform than native.
.net works from XP to 8.1, and it'll work on 10
But how well does
Which is why there is only one framework for desktop apps.
Yeah, you don't need a framework to do basic things
The same is true of the web so long as you aren't trying to support ancient IE.
but when your "users" are more properly called "customers" -- or even more important, "potential customers" -- then some web dev's desire to preach the gospel must take a back seat to doing the job the way it needs to be done, rightly or wrongly.
There are customers you want, and customers you ought to fire. Users of Internet Explorer before version 9 are probably using Windows XP, an operating system that cannot run IE 9. This means they're less likely to spend money on replacing a decade-old unsupported system with known security vulnerabilities. This in turn means they're less likely to have disposable income to buy your product. It also means they're less likely to care about the security of the payment information with which they buy your product, which can lead to an increased rate of chargebacks.
Instead of throwing many small fragments at the browser and stealing user cycles to cobble it all together, just serve up the content already.
I have served the document. Now the user has activated a control to expand details of a particular part of the document. How should this click be processed?
Or I have served the document. Now the user has opted into real-time updates of part of the document. How should these updates be served?
Not true; the arc itself is what creates the light and if you select the correct lamp you can use the same reflector or projector headlamp to get the right beam pattern. The only difference is the old H6054 style sealed beams sprayed light pretty much everywhere but modern composite headlamp assemblies do not do this. You can even get properly designed reflector or projector assemblies and replace the H6054 with the newer assemblies and the beam pattern will be just fine.
In fact many newer cars which offer an HID option will use the same basic headlamp assembly (whether reflector or projector) with either the halogen or HID lamps; the mounting flange will change in order to accommodate the ballast + D2S/D2R lamp asembly or the H7/H4/H3/H1+holder assembly. In either case the light source is in the correct location for proper focus and collimation because it is the arc between the electrodes producing the light, not the entire gas-filled globe inside the lamp.
If you're tailgating someone in the right lane you are the problem.
Rear fog lights are red.
Once you are a full teacher, it takes a basic test to be able to teach other subjects. As in, so basic that back when I was in high school, if I were a licensed teacher, there were no subjects I looked at that I'd be unable to teach.
That doesn't sound like being a 'content expert.' Unless you count getting an education degree to be a content expert. And don't get me wrong, teachers do need expertise, it's not an easy job, but not necessarily in the subject they are teaching.
I use extra bright rear fogs on my car to deal with asshole tailgaters (I love european cars - they come with rear fogs, all you need to enable them in some is a different headlamp switch module, and others you need to add four lines of code using freely-available diagnostic tools)
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
