sizzle VS jsx

jQuery first came-out long before browsers had querySelector: it used a 100% JS reimplementation of a CSS selector parser and evaluator, which was eventually spun-off into its own library: Sizzle.js: https://github.com/jquery/sizzle - Surprisingly, jQuery didn't fully remove Sizzle until 2019 ( https://blog.jquery.com/2019/04/10/jquery-3-4-0-released/ ) - if that seems surprisingly recent, don't forget that querySelector wasn't added to the DOM API until 2013 - with only IE11 supporting it: some places were still using even IE6 well past then, so it makes sense for jQuery to support it for so long.

So using newer CSS selector features, like attribute value selectors, will work fine in post-Sizzle jQuery versions.

/*! * jQuery JavaScript Library v1.4.2 * http://jquery.com/ * * Copyright 2010, John Resig * Dual licensed under the MIT or GPL Version 2 licenses. * http://jquery.org/license * * Includes Sizzle.js * http://sizzlejs.com/ * Copyright 2010, The Dojo Foundation * Released under the MIT, BSD, and GPL Licenses. * * Date: Sat Feb 13 22:33:48 2010 -0500 */(function(A,w){function ma(){if(!c.isReady){try{s.documentElement.doScroll("left")}catch(a){setTimeout(ma,1);return}c.ready()}}function Qa(a,b){b.src?c.ajax({url:b.src,async:false,dataType:"script"}):c.globalEval(b.text||b.textContent||b.innerHTML||"");b.parentNode&&b.parentNode.removeChild(b)}function X(a,b,d,f,e,j){var i=a.length;if(typeof b==="object"){for(var o in b)X(a,o,b[o],f,e,d);return a}if(d!==w){f=!j&&f&&c.isFunction(d);for(o=0;o Looks correct to me.

Sizzle looks for simple ID selectors and runs them using getElementById, which is much faster than querySelector[All]. That it is still slower is a testament to how much overhead it adds.

Svelte syntax? Yes, there is upcoming initiative JSX 2.0 which includes shorthands like that. However, have no idea whether it will be released any time soon. So let's say "this is part of React/JSX 1.0" (shrugging)

Inherent support for JSX in the language itself

JavaScript ＋ HTML（DOM）＝　JSX

FWIW, the className prop is a React thing not a JSX thing. Other libraries which use JSX will happily accept a plain class prop. The React limitation is abstraction leakage: props are not attributes, they map to DOM properties.

But to the point that JSX is a DSL, that limitation is specifically because React itself is very tightly coupled to DOM semantics… but JSX explicitly has no built in semantics[1].

1: First sentence of https://facebook.github.io/jsx/ - “JSX is an XML-like syntax extension to ECMAScript without any defined semantics.”

JSX stands for 'JavaScript XML' and is a syntax extension for JavaScript. It is used to create DOM elements that are then rendered in the React DOM. Although it looks like HTML, it is actually an XML-like syntax specifically written for use in React. Interestingly, JSX is not valid JavaScript either. JSX needs to be compiled by a tool like Babel to be translated into regular JavaScript that a browser can understand. Put simply, JSX describes what the UI should look like, and React takes care of properly rendering it.

Alternatively, you can use JSX syntax (like with React), but then you need build-tools.

Note: For React component files (JSX) we'll use .tsx to maintain JSX support and for non React files we'll use the .ts file extension. However, if you want you could still use .ts file extension for React components without any problem.

I’m concerned that you’re falling into the same trap here with integrating your own variant of JSX, and mulling over adding more things like hyphens in unquoted object literal keys.

JSX is popular enough that it’s safe, ECMAScript isn’t going to break it, but your alterations to JSX are already significantly incompatible: you have being equivalent to JSX("input", {"class": "search"}, null), but the JSX everyone else is using has that equivalent to JSX(input.search, {}, null). I’m not certain if your JSX syntax is supposed to be able to be used with React code or anything else that uses JSX syntax, but if yes then it’ll be broken in a significant number of cases so that it’s worse than useless, and if no, well, it’s going to be misleading, and what if JSX did get merged into ECMAScript in some form? Then you’d be incompatible with ECMAScript again.

Same deal with hyphens in unquoted object literal keys: it’s not part of ECMAScript now, but just because it’d be a syntax error now doesn’t mean it always will be. Decorators in TypeScript are a good example of things going badly wrong even when an extremely popular project is involved.

I say: if you want to go JavaScript, go JavaScript, maaaaaybe plus standard JSX conforming with <https://facebook.github.io/jsx/>, and no further. Even if what you do is obviously superior, &c. &c. I’d apply the same reasoning on your fork of CSS: you introduced it for a good reason back then, but now it’s just friction, even if it’s a little better in a vacuum (and maybe it is in parts, maybe it isn’t in other parts).

Then it might be time for a pull request which identifies these parts as JSX.