Brock Awadmay wrote:Do you think jQuery is a good tool/library, to add to an old web app? (In particular I am asking about a 9 year old web app.)
Wow. That really depends upon a lot of factors. If the old web app doesn't do much in the way of script, there might not be much benefit. If the app is stable, it might also be better not to rock any boats. However, if the app suddenly needs to have a lot more functionality added to it, or needs more advanced scripting capabilities than it had before, then it could very well be a good investment.
In older web app's not setup for ajax, how beneficial is a move to using jQuery?
Again, it depends
why. If you're going to be doing a lot of development, or fixing gnarly bugs in existing script, then maybe it'd be worth the retrofit. The good news is that it can be done on a page-by-page basis, and won't interfere with existing script that you don't want or need to change.
Last question, is using jQuery in only a few spots across a web app worth the work to learn and implement it? Having one page that will use jQuery functionality while the rest of the application does not.
To this one, I can say yes. The knowledge you gain can be used to fix other problems, and going forward on new pages or apps.
jQuery can be a lot like chess. You can learn how to use it effectively and simply fairly quickly. Then move on to mastering it as you go along. But the up-front investment in getting started is minimal, especially if you're already good with CSS syntax.
I have not really played with jQuery, but I think I would like to, what are your thoughts for using jQuery for rapid development and prototyping?
If your prototype needs to be a "working" prototype, I can't imagine taking the time to do with raw JavaScript what you can do much more quickly with jQuery.
What of using jQuery alongside/in frameworks? things like cakePHP, many others.
jQuery could care less what you use on the server side of things.
Does jQuery play well with technologies like google gears?
Not having ever used Gears, I can't answer specifically. But one of jQuery's focuses is to be a good on-page citizen and stay out of the way of other frameworks or libraries. When there are collusion issues, it's usually not jQuery's fault.
I do know that using jQuery is slightly different than using JS, but I find myself asking why is this so? simply because of better conventions?
Well, jQuery
is JavaScript, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Using jQuery
does have a profund effect (a good one) on how you write the script. And the amount of code will certainly be much smaller.
Does the fact of jQuery replacing much of the code that you would have to code by hand and or the higher quality of that code being replaced lead many to the high levels of satisfaction with jQuery?
Absolutely. Why write reams of cross-browser script when someone's already done it for you?
What type of change in performance does including the jQuery library normally have on pages? I think I have gotten the impression from many that it is very minimal.
It is. Another major focus of jQuery is performance. I mentioned in another reply that the internal jQuery codebase has a lot of churn from version to version. A lot of that has nothing to do with features, but with performance enhancements.
Thank you so much.
You are very welcome.
