jQuery 4.0.0 Release and Engineering Team Management Insights

TLDR

jQuery 4.0.0 marks a major milestone 20 years after its introduction, dropping old browser support and embracing modern standards. Meanwhile, early-stage startups learn to avoid premature management structures that can hinder engineering productivity.

jQuery 4.0.0: A 20-Year Milestone Release

TLDR: jQuery 4.0.0 drops support for old browsers like IE10 and introduces modern features after a decade since the last major release.

After 20 years since its introduction and nearly 10 years since the last major version, the jQuery team has released jQuery 4.0.0 with significant improvements and modernizations. This release includes breaking changes that trim legacy code and remove previously-deprecated APIs, representing a major step toward modern JavaScript development.

Key improvements in jQuery 4.0.0 include:

Removal of support for IE10 and older browsers, along with other legacy browsers like Edge Legacy
Migration of jQuery source to ES modules, making it compatible with modern build tools
Addition of Trusted Types support for Content Security Policy compliance
Removal of deprecated APIs like jQuery.isArray, jQuery.parseJSON, jQuery.trim, and others
Focus event order now follows W3C specification
Slim build reduced to approximately 19.5KB gzipped

The removal of deprecated APIs combined with the elimination of code supporting old IE resulted in a size reduction of over 3KB gzipped. The migration to ES modules makes jQuery compatible with modern development workflows and browsers through the use of <script type=module>.

For architects and teams maintaining legacy applications, jQuery 4.0.0 represents a significant evolution that may require careful migration planning. The team has provided an upgrade guide and jQuery Migrate plugin to assist with transitions.

Key takeaways:

Major library updates after long intervals often involve significant breaking changes
Modernization requires dropping support for legacy browsers and systems
Size optimization comes from removing deprecated and legacy code

Tradeoffs: jQuery gains modern compatibility and reduced size but sacrifices backward compatibility with older browsers and APIs.

Link: jQuery 4.0.0 | Official jQuery Blog

Security Vulnerabilities in Svelte Ecosystem

TLDR: Multiple CVEs affect Svelte packages, highlighting the importance of keeping dependencies updated.

The Svelte team has released patches for 5 vulnerabilities across devalue, svelte, @sveltejs/kit, and @sveltejs/adapter-node. Affected users should upgrade to non-vulnerable versions: devalue 5.6.2, svelte 5.46.4, @sveltejs/kit 2.49.5, and @sveltejs/adapter-node 5.5.1.

The vulnerabilities include:

CVE-2026-22775: DoS in devalue.parse due to memory/CPU exhaustion
CVE-2026-22774: Another DoS in devalue.parse due to memory exhaustion
CVE-2026-22803: Memory amplification DoS in Remote Functions binary form deserializer
CVE-2025-67647: Denial of service and possible SSRF when using prerendering
CVE-2025-15265: XSS via hydratable

Some vulnerabilities specifically affect SvelteKit applications using experimental remote functions, while others impact applications with prerendered routes. The SSRF vulnerability is particularly concerning as it could allow access to internal resources without authentication.

For architects and teams using Svelte, this highlights the importance of regularly updating dependencies and monitoring security advisories. The vulnerabilities demonstrate how seemingly minor parsing functions can become attack vectors in complex applications.

Key takeaways:

Regular dependency updates are critical for security
Experimental features may carry additional security risks
Prerendering functionality can introduce unexpected vulnerabilities

Tradeoffs: Svelte gains functionality with features like remote functions and prerendering but introduces potential security vulnerabilities that require careful management.

Link: CVEs affecting the Svelte ecosystem

Management Anti-Patterns in Early-Stage Engineering Teams

TLDR: Early-stage startups should avoid premature management structures and focus on hiring motivated engineers instead of trying to motivate them.

For early-stage startups (Seed, Series A), founders often mistakenly believe they need to implement engineering management practices to address issues like team motivation, project structuring, and shipping on time. However, the correct solution is often to do nothing and focus on building product and talking to users.

Key anti-patterns to avoid include:

Trying to "motivate" engineers through external signs like long hours or weekend meetings
Creating 996-style cultures or scheduling non-urgent meetings on weekends
Micro-managing tasks or requiring status reports as evidence of work
Hiring managers too soon when the team is still defining what to build
Copying management practices from large companies like Google

Instead, founders should focus on hiring inherently motivated engineers and maintaining an environment where they want to do their best work. At the founding stage (5-6 engineers), teams should largely be self-organizing with lightweight tooling. Even at the multi-team stage (10-15 people), it's recommended that all engineers report to a single person (ideally the CTO) to maintain speed of execution and culture.

For architects and teams in early-stage companies, this suggests that premature organizational complexity can be more harmful than beneficial. The focus should remain on hiring exceptional people who work well together rather than implementing formal management structures.

Key takeaways:

Motivation is an inherent trait, not something to be created through management
Premature management structures can slow down early-stage development
Simple, boring management tools are often better than innovative approaches

Tradeoffs: Teams gain structure and perceived control with management layers but sacrifice speed and agility that are crucial in early-stage companies.

Link: No management needed: anti-patterns in early-stage engineering teams

Disclaimer

This newsletter summary was automatically generated. The content reflects the views of the original authors and not necessarily those of the generator. Please refer to the original sources for complete information and context.