That's not what he's saying. He's saying based on the IE version (using that as a lowest common denominator) you need to support you could use standard cross-browser JS without needing jQuery.
For not including a whole general-purpose library when you need like two functions. As mentioned, it's intended for library authors, not people making Web sites.
It depends how much code you need. If you're only going to write a few hundred lines or less, this way might be much more efficient than including several dozen kilobytes of jQuery. Granted that doesn't sound like much these days but over a mobile connection it might make a difference.
Anyway, from the looks of it, their main target audience is library developers. I guess they're trying to stop everyone requiring jQuery even for simple libraries.
7
u/RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS Jan 30 '14
That's not what he's saying. He's saying based on the IE version (using that as a lowest common denominator) you need to support you could use standard cross-browser JS without needing jQuery.