JavaScript is a dynamic language, and it is arguably the case that many of the frameworks that exist for it hide or transform enough of the "native" implementation details as to be different languages. Or supersets of it, if you like. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that a developer who uses jQuery (or any other framework) doesn't have to have more than a vague, fleeting understanding of the "native" language under it.

Such a viewpoint would be ignorant of the distinction between a language and an API.

Yes, that's rather the parent's point, I think.

except "many of the frameworks that exist for it hide or transform enough of the "native" implementation details as to be different languages. Or supersets of it" is wrong. It's all still javascript. Just.. plain.. javascript. with a different api/library.

I don't think you understood what I wrote. And I'll leave it at that.

is there an alternative interpretation? you appear to be saying that a library can make javascript into a new or superset language.

Are you saying something different?

Your personal favorite "document fragments" is anyways supported by jQuery for HTML strings that cross a certain complexity. http://jsapi.info/jquery/1.8.0/jQuery.buildFragment