>>19
Then you recognize the comparison was fallacious and therefore irrelevant.
I love your straw man. The original author forgot a #, I decided people would know what the intent was and decided to leave it rather than misquote him. The fact that this makes up for half of your entire argument is evidence of how pathetic you are. Clearly, leaving out the # makes it a very fallacious example and I am such a liar.
That's worse. You really think the types of problems one might face using a compiled strictly typed low-level language are at all similar to those found in an interpreted scripting language run in a web browser?
Are you fucking retarded? Did you completely miss the "development pitfalls" part? I don't give two flying cinnamon fucks what you think the differences are in C and Javascript. They both have cross platform (or cross browser) issues and if you are seriously trying to dispute this you need to just get the fuck out.
jQuery isn't even an extension to the language
jQuery isn't an extension to Javascript like C++ isn't an extension to C.
jQuery is an library designed to access, control, and animate the DOM in a manner that is consistent among platforms.
Yes, jQuery is a library that duplicates all of the functionality that is ALREADY IN THE LANGUAGE SPECIFICATION. That is not an library. It's plain and simple useless cruft. C programmers use libraries, what they don't do is download a "library" that simplifies preprocessing directives, for loops, and file manipulation, and then include the entire thing in every single C file they use.