I wonder if that code block does anything at all. var http = new XMLHttpRequest(...

rmrfrmrf · on May 20, 2013

You're right, that code will blow up if the browser doesn't support XMLHttpRequest. The version below is more common:

    var ajaxObject;
    if (window.XMLHttpRequest) {
      ...
    } else if (window.ActiveXObject) {
      ...
    }
    
    if (ajaxObject) {
      ...
    } else {
      //handle users without ajax
    }

and that's just to create the object! compare to:

    $.ajax();

PavlovsCat · on May 20, 2013

and that's just to create the object! compare to: $.ajax();

So you're comparing the body of one function to the signature of another? I know I posted some really shitty code, but you managed to shoot yourself in the foot even in that scenario, grats.

https://github.com/jquery/jquery/blob/master/src/ajax.js

Here, now it's apples to apples.

rmrfrmrf · on May 21, 2013

you realize i'm talking about code I have to write, right? If anything, you've further proven my point, considering that the jQuery implementation also covers other common use cases like failure, cross-browser requests, etc., i.e. hours upon hours of googling and/or just copy-pasting the jQuery source into my app, which adds loading time to my site instead of just using a cached version of jQuery that almost everyone already has in the cache in the first place.

k3n · on May 21, 2013

When I look at that, I see man-years of work that I don't have to reinvent.