window.fetch polyfill VS cash

Most js libraries use XMLHttpRequest and so provide HTTP_X_REQUESTED_WITH: XMLHttpRequest, but neither Chrome's implementation nor Github's polyfill of the new fetch uses a similar header. So how can one detect that the request is AJAX?

In this case, Github offers a great fetch polyfill for browsers: https://github.com/github/fetch

You can polyfill fetch() if that's a concern:

https://github.com/github/fetch

I'm using this fetch polyfill in Redux with redux-promise-middleware.

Maybe a small JQuery clone like a Cash - https://github.com/fabiospampinato/cash or SurfJS https://surf.monster/ (Surf has a delay/queue, reactive templates) might help for writing less code and is still JavaScript

If stock jQuery seems too big and you have a lot of code you'd prefer not to waste time converting, try something like jQuery-slim or cash.

It was initially released in 2010. But there is a plan to create version 3.0 that will be rewritten in TypeScript and without dependency on jQuery. The plan is to use a modern Cash library to not modify the code that much.

I find that cash.js does everything I need from Jquery and it's a fraction of the size, it's great to see advancements in technology to the point that you can fit that much functionality into 6KB

Yes but it's more than just that. In relation to DOM manipulation libs like JQuery it's small and on par with something like https://github.com/fabiospampinato/cash

If you are mainly using jquery for its DOM manipulation¹ rather than for browser compatibility² or things that didn't exist consistently in older browsers³ then there are much smaller libraries that do that job which may be worth looking into. https://github.com/fabiospampinato/cash or https://github.com/franciscop/umbrella to give a couple of examples. Some explicitly support IE11 so you are not dropping as much support for legacy browsers as you might otherwise.

Though if jQuery works for you and isn't a performance issue, then by all means keep with it. It may not be ideal, but good enough and does the job. Let the naysayers spend their time debating whether you should or not, and just get on with making things!

---

[1] selection engine, chained selections, chained modifications, …

[2] not the issue it once was, if you can abandon IE and old Android browsers from your supported UAs or can deal with any issues that crop up individually

[3] again, if you can afford to drop support for legacy UAs

I think it's a bit of both. jQuery served the purpose of making web development more sane back in the day by handling all browser quirks. Part of that was the nice syntax.

I personally have tried to drop jQuery, but truthfully, its syntax is just much easier to use. Nowadays, I use Cash https://github.com/fabiospampinato/cash to give me the nice syntax without the bloat. It strikes the perfect balance for me.

Taking a look at Cash so I don't have to rewrite a metric flock-ton of code. https://github.com/fabiospampinato/cash. Looking through the migration guide, I don't see any issues that affect my codebase (famous last words).

Cash's maintainer here. I don't think this is true actually.

Zepto supports some methods that Cash doesn't, but you probably shouldn't use them to begin with, like $.ajax, $.isArray, $.fn.animate etc. In 2022 either better built-in solutions exist or better specialized tiny libraries exist.

Everything that is supported by both Zepto and Cash should either work identically or Cash's implementation should be closer to jQuery's. Just to mention one thing in this regard you can run jQuery's test suite with Cash, and Cash's test suite with jQuery, easily [0]. I've done so and looked at every single failed test manually a few times, I doubt nearly the same level of attention went into Zepto. Just to mention one difference: Cash supports jQuery-style event namespacing, Zepto just doesn't support this.

[0]: https://github.com/fabiospampinato/cash/blob/272132a6dc1d885...