Yeah, the PlayBook already "stole" a ton of the really great ideas from WebOS. The corner of the screen even "glows red" with new notifications.
It's no secret that those ideas contribute greatly to the fantastic UI that the PlayBook is famous for. Add QNX, solid hardware, and the great new features of OS2, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a better tablet on the market.
Of course, RIM makes the PlayBook so in Slashdot land that makes it automatically useless. It totally sucks having the best HTML5 support along with WebGL and desktop quality Flash in my lightning-fast browser. It's terrible to have real-time multitasking and an UI that let's the user take advantage of it.
You probably felt like a moron a few seconds after you hit 'submit'. In case you didn't, I strongly recommend that you take a look at the wikipedia article for inertia.
Lunch was not taken away from the girl; she was given extra food because they were worried she might not have enough.
She's four-years old! A turkey and cheese sandwich and banana alone should be more than filling. Add the potato-chip snack and you've got a pretty big lunch for a four-year-old girl.
Apple Juice might not be the best choice of drink, sure, but this lunch seemed reasonably healthy and more than adequate for a 4-year-old.
"Apple will have moved on to the next level of fashionable semi-functionality"... I stopped reading this MS puff-piece right there
I don't follow. Apple products are historically fashionable and (purposefully?) semi-functional.
Look at the first iPhone -- both fashionable and barely functional (it lacked many features common to low-end dumb-phones at the time.)
How about the iPod? It did less that competing offerings, but was very fashionable (remember the silhouette+white-earbuds ads?) They turned the MP3 player into a fashion accessory.
Compare the fashionable iPad to other competing tablets. You'll find that, again, it's lacking (very useful) features that competing tablets have offered for a while now. Even features it has (like "multi-tasking") are half-baked and barely functional.
In fact, I remember the Apple faithful here praising the both the iPhone and iPad specifically for missing certain features! That the products were "semi-functional" was considered a selling point!
So, yes. fashionable and semi-functional seems perfectly accurate to me. That is, unless you wanted to argue that Apple's products aren't fashionable.
No doubt it would just be a carbon copy of all tablets, which use apple's interface
Wow, way to be completely uninformed! Love it or hate it, Microsoft's Metro UI is significantly different from iOS. (iOS's UI itself is, compared to other tablet UI's, more than a bit shallow and clunky. WebOS and RIM's PlayBook OS are infinitely more usable.)
Today, it would be suicide to copy Apples UI -- it's fallen so far behind the competition that I don't see how they'll ever catch-up. Multi-tasking on iOS, for example, is absolutely abysmal. (A four-finger swipe? Seriously Apple?)
Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know of a single tablet that copies Apples interface.
No one can seriously use a capacitive screen stylus -- it's like trying to take notes with an over-sized crayon.
Contrast this with taking notes using a fine-point stylus on a resistive touch-screen (try it on an old PDA if you have one lying around) and you'll see how inadequate the fake-finger stylus truly is for pen-computing.
This is where a resistive touch screen would be better for note-taking. You get more precision than a capacitive screen, and your hand resting on the display will cause fewer problems.
RIM has a patent on a hybrid resistive/capacitive touchscreen which, with the right software, would be great for taking notes. Let's hope that they do something with that patent.
It seems to me that to "First, do no harm" fits with keeping the anti-vaccine disease bags away from other patients in the waiting room who may be still be vulnerable to the diseases that the morons refused to get vaccinated against.
Doctor: "Your kid needs to be vaccinated"
Patient: "I'm a complete moron, so I'm going to refuse."
Doctor: "Fine. GTFO and don't come back. I can't have you putting my other patients at risk."
Would you rater the doctor say "Okay, that's cool. I'm sure that you won't ever carry and consequently transmit dangerous yet preventable diseases to my vulnerable patients."
Not tossing the idiots out seems like "doing harm" to me.
identify thieves could just do their thing driving by, without even having to get out of their cars to dig through the trash! What a timesaver that would be. Might even go a ways toward making the profession a little more respectable -- more along the lines of, say, [...] wall-street bankers.
I don't understand. It sounds like a massive step down to me.
Your paper does not claim what you claim it claims (from the freaking abstract):
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the eld support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
the relative climate expertise and scientic prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
I'm still on the first page! You should see how they determine "expertise" and "prominence", it's a laugh. Honestly, I've never seen rhetoric abused so much in a supposedly scientific paper.
I can read on, but this doesn't look like it's going to be a terribly credible paper.
Here's a real gem:
Between December 2008 and July 2009, we collected the number of climate-relevant publications for all 1,372 researchers from Google Scholar (search terms: “author:-lastname climate”), as well as the number of times cited for each researcher’s four top-cited articles in any eld (search term “climate” removed). [... ] using Google Scholar provides a more conservative estimate of expertise
To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers (NCE = 817; NUE = 93). Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all CE versus all UE researchers.
What really stands out, however, are the numerous confounders that are NOT considered by the authors at all!
You called him names. That automatically makes everything he says true and invalidates everything you've ever posted until his feelings don't hurt any more.
Taxes don't contribute to costs. Taxes are paid on net profits, not revenues. Raising corporate tax rates encourages companies to reinvest profits into the business by hiring new employees, buy new equipment, etc. (they expand, rather than pay taxes.) Lowering corporate taxes does absolutely nothing to create jobs -- increase taxes does.
The only tablets with FIPS certification right now are the Blackberry Playbook (which it had ages ago) and the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (which just got certified last month).
Apple said they were working on getting FIPS certification back in 2010, but that never materialized.
So how do you create code that is modular and can be reused if the manipulators and data are spread all round your code instead of being grouped into a single spot (aka a object)?
Do you really need to ask this? Do you think that the state of programming was a convoluted mess before the object become in-vogue? I don't even know where to begin answering your question -- you seem to be missing too much to address in even a long discussion in this thread -- and you seem to have a bizarre set of assumptions about non-oo code. (BTW, you also seem to have "object" confused with "class".)
go to a person or any college programming course and the definition is modularity, re-usability, and maintainability.
No, it's not. Those are often cited as the benefits of OOP approaches, but none of those promises has turned out to be true. Moreover, OOP is not only not the only way to achieve those benefits -- OOP was supposed to achieve those benefits automatically. This turned out to be false. OOP does not guarantee modularity, code reuse, or maintainability -- Quite the opposite in fact. Improved developer productivity (what you should expect when those three pan-out) has not been found over procedural approaches in actual studies of the subject.
It's clear that you've been mislead. Don't worry too much about it, you're not alone. The hype and propaganda (by vendors of oo products) sold a lot of people on a myth.
Modularity implies groupings of data and manipulator functions/methods into a class/object like system therefore it implies OO.
No, it does not. A class is just one of many ways to achieve modularity. It's good sometimes, but not all the time or even most of the time. Again, you need know a bit more about the subject of modularity before we could begin a legitimate discussion of the various merits of class-based oo and other approaches.
Of course, I'm giving OOP too much credit here. The truth is that no one agrees on what OOP actually is Alan Kay (who coined the term) regrets it as so-called modern OO langauges are so far removed from his original vision as to be unrecognizable. Even two oft-claimed 'primary concepts' of OO, inheritance and encapsulation, are incompatible with one another! (Inheritance breaks encapsulation.)
I do use objects on occasion when they make sense to use. Of course, I use them extremely sparingly. I've found that it's not very often that an object is the best approach to modularity. Sometimes I'm forced to use them in place of (once common) structures like records due to the language I'm working in at the time, but that's a practical matter.
Google "OOP Criticism" for some insight here and google "Modular programming" to get a sense of what that is really all about, and why OO inheritance is directly at odds with the basic principles of modularity.
One has to live with reason, and not be demanding unreasonable compensation. (What is reasonable anyway??)
Unions are the only reason that companies offer workers a livable wage and safe working conditions. Companies will naturally try to pay workers as little as they can and spend as little as possible on things that don't directly contribute to production, like safety equipment.
Laborers are not in short supply, so given free-reign, companies could offer wages that would put the average worker on the street and still be able to hire enough workers to maintain production. Why do you think we have a mandated minimum wage? Already, even at its current rate, it's difficult to survive on a full-time minimum wage income. Often both parents need to work full time to make ends meet. If it weren't for social safety-net programs, those families wouldn't even be able to get health insurance for their children!
Companies are NOT looking out for the best interests of their employees or the community. Unions are one of the few ways that workers have to keep the abuses of their employers in-check.
No one in the US could live on the $10/day Apple pays its workers in China. Anti-union people tend to also be against social programs (which wouldn't be necessary if companies behaved responsibly) so you'd have American workers living on the street with no access to healthcare working long hours while on a diet of the least expensive food you can buy.
Corporations want the tax-payers to pick-up the tab for their abuses, while you likely want to not only allow the abuse, but also let the tax-payers off the hook and let hard-working people starve on the street in-between long shifts.
That is a truly disgusting vision. I truly hope that you're just deluded into thinking that employers will behave in a way that is socially responsible.
The OP has a good question about the best way to use Javascript to facilitate classes and object-oriented design, but instead it's turned into a troll fest for people who are too rigid to understand the defacto industry standard paradigm for the web, simply because it's so different from the languages they work with.
First of all, objects in Javascript are prototype based, not class based. The OP has already set themselves up for failure. OOD isn't even a real thing -- like OOP, no one knows what it *really* is but they're all 100% sure that it's the best thing to happen to programming ever and that other people simply don't know how to use this methodology that "makes everything easier". (The first time I saw a factoryfactory I almost threw-up. I saw a factoryfactoryfactory the other day -- WTF was that idiot thinking? GoF has ruined an entire generation of programmers with their idiotic nonsense, and likely caused billions of dollars in lost productivity.)
Anyhow, if you really think selectors are essential, you really need to re-think your approach. Further, if lack of a standard document.getElementsBySelector() is the only reason you're using a bloated "framework" like jQuery, you can find smaller equivalents online or roll-your-own if you so choose. Either way, you'll be much better off.
Javascript is simple. Working with the DOM is simple if you understand it, which it seems most people don't, if this discussion is any indication.
OOP does not instantly mean "reusable" or "maintainable". The worst bad code I've ever had to deal with was bad OO code. Of course, most OO code is bad these days, and it's getting worse! (You haven't see spaghetti code until you've seen a medium sized OOP project!)
We had modularity, code reuse, and wrote maintainable code long before the OO hype.
You could say that. Dealing with the illegible garbage that other people produce with jQuery (often at the expense of simpler and more legible solutions) certainly feels like I've been violated.
As for cross-browser JS, that's been painless for many years now. Whatever benefits jQuery may have offered in the past are completely irrelevant today. Writing code that works across-browers is already ridiculously easy. jQuery is actually adding unnecessary complexity!
That makes my point, doesn't it? It's non-obvious what the code does, even if you're familiar with jQuery.
To really understand it, you need a practical knowledge of jQuery, html, css, and... (wait for it)... the hard parts of javascript that you're trying to avoid learning about and using in the first place!
(Oh, and if you let me make my own versions of the before and toggleClass functions I can do that in javascript in well under 30 lines of much more readable code.)
It's not 2002 any more. Had you avoided jQuery you'd know how much the web has changed and how simple it is to make complex things happen across the major browsersv:)
Besides, you shouldn't have been doing "fancy UI stuff" with Javascript in 2002. I refused to even use JS until 2006 when I decided things were finally sane enough to invest my time in.
If you feel that JQuery is making things less readable, why not wrap the JQuery stuff in your own functions?
You can't be serious! Wrap an unnecessary (and bloated) library in a set of my own functions? Why not just write my own functions in the first place! I could cut out jQuery, reduce the size of my pages, and improve the codes performance.
Which is what I do, actually. Skipping the whole jQuery mess altogether!
Working with the DOM yourself is painless if you understand it. Most people don't (yet assume that they do) and haven't even made a legitimate effort to learn about it. If you read the standards, and spend some time playing with what you're reading about, you'll find that it's not difficult at all. You'll also find that managing cross-browser compatibility is almost as simple as merely avoiding a (vanishingly) small subset of things.
As for cross-browser ajax, it's also really easy *if* you've taken the time to actually understand it. I wrote a small cross-browser php/js ajax library years ago (2006 or 2007) that works (it's in production) unmodified to this day. It took less time to write than it did to learn the equivalent bits of jQuery.
jQuery, in my experience, leads to less-readable and less-maintainable code. The added bloat is just salt in the wound. Really, the people I see push hardest for jQuerey are the same people who don't seem to 'get' that JS is not Java/c#/c++ or people that don't really understand the DOM or CSS.
Sure, if you were tasked with creating a set of standards for the web you'd never come up with a mess like HTML, CSS, JS -- it's not difficult to imagine a simpler set of standards. Of course, it's what we have. jQuery just makes an already big mess even bigger -- with no obvious net-benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the PlayBook already "stole" a ton of the really great ideas from WebOS. The corner of the screen even "glows red" with new notifications.
It's no secret that those ideas contribute greatly to the fantastic UI that the PlayBook is famous for. Add QNX, solid hardware, and the great new features of OS2, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a better tablet on the market.
Of course, RIM makes the PlayBook so in Slashdot land that makes it automatically useless. It totally sucks having the best HTML5 support along with WebGL and desktop quality Flash in my lightning-fast browser. It's terrible to have real-time multitasking and an UI that let's the user take advantage of it.
You probably felt like a moron a few seconds after you hit 'submit'. In case you didn't, I strongly recommend that you take a look at the wikipedia article for inertia.
Lunch was not taken away from the girl; she was given extra food because they were worried she might not have enough.
She's four-years old! A turkey and cheese sandwich and banana alone should be more than filling. Add the potato-chip snack and you've got a pretty big lunch for a four-year-old girl.
Apple Juice might not be the best choice of drink, sure, but this lunch seemed reasonably healthy and more than adequate for a 4-year-old.
"Apple will have moved on to the next level of fashionable semi-functionality" ... I stopped reading this MS puff-piece right there
I don't follow. Apple products are historically fashionable and (purposefully?) semi-functional.
Look at the first iPhone -- both fashionable and barely functional (it lacked many features common to low-end dumb-phones at the time.)
How about the iPod? It did less that competing offerings, but was very fashionable (remember the silhouette+white-earbuds ads?) They turned the MP3 player into a fashion accessory.
Compare the fashionable iPad to other competing tablets. You'll find that, again, it's lacking (very useful) features that competing tablets have offered for a while now. Even features it has (like "multi-tasking") are half-baked and barely functional.
In fact, I remember the Apple faithful here praising the both the iPhone and iPad specifically for missing certain features! That the products were "semi-functional" was considered a selling point!
So, yes. fashionable and semi-functional seems perfectly accurate to me. That is, unless you wanted to argue that Apple's products aren't fashionable.
No doubt it would just be a carbon copy of all tablets, which use apple's interface
Wow, way to be completely uninformed! Love it or hate it, Microsoft's Metro UI is significantly different from iOS. (iOS's UI itself is, compared to other tablet UI's, more than a bit shallow and clunky. WebOS and RIM's PlayBook OS are infinitely more usable.)
Today, it would be suicide to copy Apples UI -- it's fallen so far behind the competition that I don't see how they'll ever catch-up. Multi-tasking on iOS, for example, is absolutely abysmal. (A four-finger swipe? Seriously Apple?)
Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know of a single tablet that copies Apples interface.
No one can seriously use a capacitive screen stylus -- it's like trying to take notes with an over-sized crayon.
Contrast this with taking notes using a fine-point stylus on a resistive touch-screen (try it on an old PDA if you have one lying around) and you'll see how inadequate the fake-finger stylus truly is for pen-computing.
This is where a resistive touch screen would be better for note-taking. You get more precision than a capacitive screen, and your hand resting on the display will cause fewer problems.
RIM has a patent on a hybrid resistive/capacitive touchscreen which, with the right software, would be great for taking notes. Let's hope that they do something with that patent.
It seems to me that to "First, do no harm" fits with keeping the anti-vaccine disease bags away from other patients in the waiting room who may be still be vulnerable to the diseases that the morons refused to get vaccinated against.
Doctor: "Your kid needs to be vaccinated"
Patient: "I'm a complete moron, so I'm going to refuse."
Doctor: "Fine. GTFO and don't come back. I can't have you putting my other patients at risk."
Would you rater the doctor say "Okay, that's cool. I'm sure that you won't ever carry and consequently transmit dangerous yet preventable diseases to my vulnerable patients."
Not tossing the idiots out seems like "doing harm" to me.
identify thieves could just do their thing driving by, without even having to get out of their cars to dig through the trash! What a timesaver that would be. Might even go a ways toward making the profession a little more respectable -- more along the lines of, say, [...] wall-street bankers.
I don't understand. It sounds like a massive step down to me.
Your paper does not claim what you claim it claims (from the freaking abstract):
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the eld support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
the relative climate expertise and scientic prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
I'm still on the first page! You should see how they determine "expertise" and "prominence", it's a laugh. Honestly, I've never seen rhetoric abused so much in a supposedly scientific paper.
I can read on, but this doesn't look like it's going to be a terribly credible paper.
Here's a real gem:
Between December 2008 and July 2009, we collected the number of climate-relevant publications for all 1,372 researchers from Google Scholar (search terms: “author:-lastname climate”), as well as the number of times cited for each researcher’s four top-cited articles in any eld (search term “climate” removed). [ ... ] using Google Scholar provides a more conservative estimate of expertise
To examine only researchers with demonstrated climate expertise, we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers (NCE = 817; NUE = 93). Our dataset is not comprehensive of the climate community and therefore does not infer absolute numbers or proportions of all CE versus all UE researchers.
What really stands out, however, are the numerous confounders that are NOT considered by the authors at all!
Sorry, this paper is total garbage.
You called him names. That automatically makes everything he says true and invalidates everything you've ever posted until his feelings don't hurt any more.
Those are the rules of the internet.
Well, the numbers I have can be found here
84% support the earth is warming
74% support man influenced warming
67% warming due to man made CO2
14% that the earth is in fact cooling.
These are in complete agreement with this expert as well.
What drives cost are taxes, wages and benefits.
Taxes don't contribute to costs. Taxes are paid on net profits, not revenues. Raising corporate tax rates encourages companies to reinvest profits into the business by hiring new employees, buy new equipment, etc. (they expand, rather than pay taxes.) Lowering corporate taxes does absolutely nothing to create jobs -- increase taxes does.
I rest my case.
Try doing a search on a paper book, for a term not in the index.
Try using a search in place of a proper index. I guaranteed you'll take the well-designed index every time.
I'd be happy if they looked at a secure solution!
The only tablets with FIPS certification right now are the Blackberry Playbook (which it had ages ago) and the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (which just got certified last month).
Apple said they were working on getting FIPS certification back in 2010, but that never materialized.
So how do you create code that is modular and can be reused if the manipulators and data are spread all round your code instead of being grouped into a single spot (aka a object)?
Do you really need to ask this? Do you think that the state of programming was a convoluted mess before the object become in-vogue? I don't even know where to begin answering your question -- you seem to be missing too much to address in even a long discussion in this thread -- and you seem to have a bizarre set of assumptions about non-oo code. (BTW, you also seem to have "object" confused with "class".)
go to a person or any college programming course and the definition is modularity, re-usability, and maintainability.
No, it's not. Those are often cited as the benefits of OOP approaches, but none of those promises has turned out to be true. Moreover, OOP is not only not the only way to achieve those benefits -- OOP was supposed to achieve those benefits automatically. This turned out to be false. OOP does not guarantee modularity, code reuse, or maintainability -- Quite the opposite in fact. Improved developer productivity (what you should expect when those three pan-out) has not been found over procedural approaches in actual studies of the subject.
It's clear that you've been mislead. Don't worry too much about it, you're not alone. The hype and propaganda (by vendors of oo products) sold a lot of people on a myth.
Modularity implies groupings of data and manipulator functions/methods into a class/object like system therefore it implies OO.
No, it does not. A class is just one of many ways to achieve modularity. It's good sometimes, but not all the time or even most of the time. Again, you need know a bit more about the subject of modularity before we could begin a legitimate discussion of the various merits of class-based oo and other approaches.
Of course, I'm giving OOP too much credit here. The truth is that no one agrees on what OOP actually is Alan Kay (who coined the term) regrets it as so-called modern OO langauges are so far removed from his original vision as to be unrecognizable. Even two oft-claimed 'primary concepts' of OO, inheritance and encapsulation, are incompatible with one another! (Inheritance breaks encapsulation.)
I do use objects on occasion when they make sense to use. Of course, I use them extremely sparingly. I've found that it's not very often that an object is the best approach to modularity. Sometimes I'm forced to use them in place of (once common) structures like records due to the language I'm working in at the time, but that's a practical matter.
Google "OOP Criticism" for some insight here and google "Modular programming" to get a sense of what that is really all about, and why OO inheritance is directly at odds with the basic principles of modularity.
One has to live with reason, and not be demanding unreasonable compensation. (What is reasonable anyway??)
Unions are the only reason that companies offer workers a livable wage and safe working conditions. Companies will naturally try to pay workers as little as they can and spend as little as possible on things that don't directly contribute to production, like safety equipment.
Laborers are not in short supply, so given free-reign, companies could offer wages that would put the average worker on the street and still be able to hire enough workers to maintain production. Why do you think we have a mandated minimum wage? Already, even at its current rate, it's difficult to survive on a full-time minimum wage income. Often both parents need to work full time to make ends meet. If it weren't for social safety-net programs, those families wouldn't even be able to get health insurance for their children!
Companies are NOT looking out for the best interests of their employees or the community. Unions are one of the few ways that workers have to keep the abuses of their employers in-check.
No one in the US could live on the $10/day Apple pays its workers in China. Anti-union people tend to also be against social programs (which wouldn't be necessary if companies behaved responsibly) so you'd have American workers living on the street with no access to healthcare working long hours while on a diet of the least expensive food you can buy.
Corporations want the tax-payers to pick-up the tab for their abuses, while you likely want to not only allow the abuse, but also let the tax-payers off the hook and let hard-working people starve on the street in-between long shifts.
That is a truly disgusting vision. I truly hope that you're just deluded into thinking that employers will behave in a way that is socially responsible.
If it is modular, reusable, and maintainable then it is OO
Woah... Put down the kool-aid there pal. I've seen some wacky definitions of OO before, but this one takes the cake!
I recommend you go do some serious reading. You've got an awful lot to learn.
The OP has a good question about the best way to use Javascript to facilitate classes and object-oriented design, but instead it's turned into a troll fest for people who are too rigid to understand the defacto industry standard paradigm for the web, simply because it's so different from the languages they work with.
First of all, objects in Javascript are prototype based, not class based. The OP has already set themselves up for failure. OOD isn't even a real thing -- like OOP, no one knows what it *really* is but they're all 100% sure that it's the best thing to happen to programming ever and that other people simply don't know how to use this methodology that "makes everything easier". (The first time I saw a factoryfactory I almost threw-up. I saw a factoryfactoryfactory the other day -- WTF was that idiot thinking? GoF has ruined an entire generation of programmers with their idiotic nonsense, and likely caused billions of dollars in lost productivity.)
Anyhow, if you really think selectors are essential, you really need to re-think your approach. Further, if lack of a standard document.getElementsBySelector() is the only reason you're using a bloated "framework" like jQuery, you can find smaller equivalents online or roll-your-own if you so choose. Either way, you'll be much better off.
Javascript is simple. Working with the DOM is simple if you understand it, which it seems most people don't, if this discussion is any indication.
OOP does not instantly mean "reusable" or "maintainable". The worst bad code I've ever had to deal with was bad OO code. Of course, most OO code is bad these days, and it's getting worse! (You haven't see spaghetti code until you've seen a medium sized OOP project!)
We had modularity, code reuse, and wrote maintainable code long before the OO hype.
Are you from the past? IE6 is rapidly vanishing. StatCounter reported it as having 5% market share in the US and Europe way back in June of 2010.
You have a funny definition of popular!
did it touch you inappropriately?
You could say that. Dealing with the illegible garbage that other people produce with jQuery (often at the expense of simpler and more legible solutions) certainly feels like I've been violated.
As for cross-browser JS, that's been painless for many years now. Whatever benefits jQuery may have offered in the past are completely irrelevant today. Writing code that works across-browers is already ridiculously easy. jQuery is actually adding unnecessary complexity!
That makes my point, doesn't it? It's non-obvious what the code does, even if you're familiar with jQuery.
To really understand it, you need a practical knowledge of jQuery, html, css, and ... (wait for it) ... the hard parts of javascript that you're trying to avoid learning about and using in the first place!
(Oh, and if you let me make my own versions of the before and toggleClass functions I can do that in javascript in well under 30 lines of much more readable code.)
It's not 2002 any more. Had you avoided jQuery you'd know how much the web has changed and how simple it is to make complex things happen across the major browsersv:)
Besides, you shouldn't have been doing "fancy UI stuff" with Javascript in 2002. I refused to even use JS until 2006 when I decided things were finally sane enough to invest my time in.
If you feel that JQuery is making things less readable, why not wrap the JQuery stuff in your own functions?
You can't be serious! Wrap an unnecessary (and bloated) library in a set of my own functions? Why not just write my own functions in the first place! I could cut out jQuery, reduce the size of my pages, and improve the codes performance.
Which is what I do, actually. Skipping the whole jQuery mess altogether!
Working with the DOM yourself is painless if you understand it. Most people don't (yet assume that they do) and haven't even made a legitimate effort to learn about it. If you read the standards, and spend some time playing with what you're reading about, you'll find that it's not difficult at all. You'll also find that managing cross-browser compatibility is almost as simple as merely avoiding a (vanishingly) small subset of things.
As for cross-browser ajax, it's also really easy *if* you've taken the time to actually understand it. I wrote a small cross-browser php/js ajax library years ago (2006 or 2007) that works (it's in production) unmodified to this day. It took less time to write than it did to learn the equivalent bits of jQuery.
jQuery, in my experience, leads to less-readable and less-maintainable code. The added bloat is just salt in the wound. Really, the people I see push hardest for jQuerey are the same people who don't seem to 'get' that JS is not Java/c#/c++ or people that don't really understand the DOM or CSS.
Sure, if you were tasked with creating a set of standards for the web you'd never come up with a mess like HTML, CSS, JS -- it's not difficult to imagine a simpler set of standards. Of course, it's what we have. jQuery just makes an already big mess even bigger -- with no obvious net-benefit.