Slashdot Mirror

Vanilla.js is the most secure, most enabling javascript ever!

You can't beat Vanilla.js; it outperforms every other framework in usability.

Yet Vanilla.js is the smallest, most efficient, fastest loading framework available!

Vanilla.js lets you use less code to do more work, in more standardized ways, and future proofs your code by reducing legacy burden.

Get Vanilla.js for your project, today!

Vanilla.js is the most secure, most enabling javascript ever!

You can't beat Vanilla.js; it outperforms every other framework in usability.

Yet Vanilla.js is the smallest, most efficient, fastest loading framework available!

Vanilla.js lets you use less code to do more work, in more standardized ways, and future proofs your code by reducing legacy burden.

Get Vanilla.js for your project, today!

Vanilla.js is the most secure, most enabling javascript ever!

You can't beat Vanilla.js; it outperforms every other framework in usability.

Yet Vanilla.js is the smallest, most efficient, fastest loading framework available!

Vanilla.js lets you use less code to do more work, in more standardized ways, and future proofs your code by reducing legacy burden.

Get Vanilla.js for your project, today!

Vanilla.js is the most secure, most enabling javascript ever!

You can't beat Vanilla.js; it outperforms every other framework in usability.

Yet Vanilla.js is the smallest, most efficient, fastest loading framework available!

Vanilla.js lets you use less code to do more work, in more standardized ways, and future proofs your code by reducing legacy burden.

Get Vanilla.js for your project, today!

Vanilla.js is the most secure, most enabling javascript ever!

You can't beat Vanilla.js; it outperforms every other framework in usability.

Yet Vanilla.js is the smallest, most efficient, fastest loading framework available!

Vanilla.js lets you use less code to do more work, in more standardized ways, and future proofs your code by reducing legacy burden.

Get Vanilla.js for your project, today!

Last year's survey discovered that React was the dominant framework, though the second most-popular framework was "none," with 9,493 JavaScript developers saying they didn't use one.

http://vanilla-js.com/

Look at the speed comparisons. And the other big bonus is not having to download multiple hundred kilobytes (if not megabytes) of framework code.

http://vanilla-js.com/

As the fastest and leanest framework

There is no statistics for the Vanilla JS library.

Why people continue to use librairies and frameworks in 2018 is baffling. INTERNET EXPLORER IS DEAD, why the fuck are you still dragging megabtes of librairies and frameworks?

That or site operators should ask themselves if a site really needs jQuery at all as opposed to a lighter-weight framework that runs on top of vanilla. In fact, if a site presents mostly static documents, it can present a view that doesn't require script at all. This is a lot easier now that IE 9 and earlier have reached their end of official support, and IE 11 requires far fewer heavyweight polyfills.

"But I have users who still use unsupported versions of Internet Explorer!" Count them again. If you still have them over the past 30 days, let them know through an occasional message in a lightbox that Microsoft has stopped fixing defects in their operating system, and latent forever-day vulnerabilities will put their computers at risk for intrusion.

And the icing on the cake: Once you stop using googleapis.com, Google can't data mine which sites are referring users to googleapis.com anymore.

Agreed. The reason they're horribly inefficient is because programmers don't understand how to use javascript, so they end up using massive frameworks and libraries to do even the most basic things. http://vanilla-js.com/

Software developers need secure libraries to work with. At least one exists secure library

XML can transform with XSLT clientside

So can JSON, through JSLT. To get started with JSLT, see Vanilla JS and DOM Intro.

(Hint: JSLT is just JavaScript that builds a DOM.)

why use jQuery when VanillaJS loads faster and is proven bug free?
VanillaJS is used by more websites than jQuery.

how big is your gain?

I would rather recommend to use less js, especially as it all adds processing time (which is normally single threaded in a browser ...)
A nice option is to replace a big jquery or similiar with http://vanilla-js.com/. Almost all functions you really need are already included, even those which needed jquery in the past.

http://vanilla-js.com/ is probably much more worth learning and using. The *ONLY* reason to be using jQuery is for IE8 support, but I've long since required IE9+ for all freelance work I do, and do everything in CSS and Vanilla JS now.

This always sounds to me like a story from The Onion: "Area Programmer Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Use JQuery"

http://www.theonion.com/articl...

Anyone who is considering learning jQuery should also check out Vanilla JS.

Vanilla JS is a fast, lightweight, cross-platform framework for building incredible, powerful JavaScript applications.

I love it every time "Vanilla JS" is brought up in a jquery post. Please see my previous post on the topic, which demonstrates why that website is both dishonest in its comparison, as well as a perfect example of why you should use a proven library instead of reinventing the wheel (and all the bugs that come with said reinvention)

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

http://vanilla-js.com/ is probably much more worth learning and using. The *ONLY* reason to be using jQuery is for IE8 support, but I've long since required IE9+ for all freelance work I do, and do everything in CSS and Vanilla JS now.

Anyone who is considering learning jQuery should also check out Vanilla JS.

Vanilla JS is a fast, lightweight, cross-platform framework for building incredible, powerful JavaScript applications.

Have you tried the latest framework, Vanilla JS? It's faster and more efficient than any other framework.

I hear great things about that new-fangled VanillaJS framework. Very lightweight and fast, and already more popular than jQuery.

Now hiring a VanillaJS developer with a minimum of 10 years experience - info: thisjokedoesnotwork@slashdot.sucks

I hear great things about that new-fangled VanillaJS framework. Very lightweight and fast, and already more popular than jQuery.

Yeah, we're not dealing with even a minimally competent "developer" here. Judging from the rest of the thread, he's not the exception.

This is true. If the guy is only using jQuery for ajax functionality, well, why would you do that? Is he targeting IE6? Every browser released in the last 10 years supports XMLHttpRequest, why not just use that? Is the status callback function too hard to figure out? Why bring in all of jQuery's bloat just for ajax? Why not write a quick little ajax function? If he just really wants to use a framework, I would suggest the Vanilla-JS framework, it's really not that difficult to learn and use. And it's really fast.

jQuery is a hack too?

Vanilla.js. Have a look over their jQuery/Vanilla-JS comparison examples and consider if you really want jQuery.
At a glance:

Vanilla JS is a fast, lightweight, cross-platform framework for building incredible, powerful JavaScript applications.
...
Vanilla JS makes everything an object, which is very convenient for OO JS applications.
Native support for HTML5 and other cutting-edge technologies makes me keep coming back to Vanilla JS, time after time.
Vanilla JS is the lowest-overhead, most comprehensive framework I've ever used.

I'll define "a good alternative" as one which is smaller, faster, and has better cross-browser support and a more consistent API.

It turns out that already exists an excellent alternative that meets all of the above criteria and more. You're welcome.

I really do appreciate a good framework... My favorite one currently is Vanilla-js http://vanilla-js.com/

Check it out. Amazing performance.

That's funny and cute. I thought it was a real framework for a moment. But that aside, the website is dishonest in their comparisons. They try to make the complexity of the "vanilla.js" code look much smaller by unnecessarily mentioning you have to include the jquery library (even though you only do it once per page regardless of you many times you use it in that page), and they include the script tags on the jquery example but not the vanilla.js example (or does vanilla.js somehow magically not need script tags to denote that it's script?). So to give a more honest comparison, lets look at their fading example. here's the real comparison:

vanilla.js:
var s = document.getElementById('thing').style;
s.opacity = 1;
(function fade(){(s.opacity-=.1)0?s.display="none":setTimeout(fade,40)})();

jquery:
$('#thing').fadeOut();

uhhhhhhhhh.....you know, I think I'll take the jquery one, thank you. Same thing with the ajax example...not as drastic as the fade example, but the jquery example is MUCH cleaner looking to me.

But oh yeah, there is the performance issue. 12,137,211 ops/sec with vanilla.js, vs only 350,557 with jquery. Yeah, that is quite compelling....except that I'm generally only doing a handful of operations per second, not 12 million, and the difference between a few nanoseconds and a few more nanoseconds really isn't that big of a deal. In the VERY rare case where I'm doing something where performance becomes an issue, I'll optimize where needed, but I don't waste my time prematurely optimizing.

You know what I like to actually optimize? Getting things working correctly. Think jquery is a waste? Well, lets look at that fading example above. Pretty darn simple, isn't it? Surely nothing tricky there. So lets see. jQuery seems to work fine. How about that more monstrous vanilla.js version they posted. ok, it's working fine in firefox. How about chromium. Oh interesting. Look at that. It fades out almost all the way, but never totally disappears and gets hidden. Why is that? The code LOOKS to be correct (though perhaps that < 0 should be <= 0 ...nope, that wasn't it). Ok lets do some debugging of the opacity value on each iteration:

1
0.9
0.8
0.7000000000000001 (uh oh, I see where this is going)
0.6000000000000001
0.5000000000000001
0.40000000000000013
0.30000000000000016
0.20000000000000015
0.10000000000000014
0.10000000000000014
0.10000000000000014

oh, hey. look at that. chromium never lets the value get below 0, so that function keeps getting called forever, but never actually finishes and hides it. OK, so that's one stike against it.

Here's another thought...what happens if the element with id 'thing' doesn't actually exist? Oops, he forgot to check for null, so anything after his .style in the first line of code line will never get executed because the javascript will abort with an error at that line. OK, 2 strikes.

OK, now what about when it is time to reshow the block we just hid. Hmmmm...now was that #thing object set to block or inline display? Oops, he forgot to save the state. We can set it to blank to go back to the default, but what if it was already overridden before we got to the value? Ooops. Strike 3.

Yes, his example could be adjusted to fix all of these issues, but that's the point. The code looks horrendous and it has at least 3 bugs in that simple example so you are going to have to make it even more complex. Meanwhile my jquery example simply worked and I'm already on to the next thing.

Since JavaScript is so damn lacking, those libraries are ESSENTIAL for anything beyond the smallest JavaScript app.

That's why I use the one true library: Vanilla JS Just look at those benchmarks! You're a fool if you use any other library!

It's pretty well-known that jQuery is an absolute mess. A lot of effort has gone in to improving it, sure, but that sort of makes the point, doesn't it? Take a look through the code yourself. It still isn't pretty.

To call it "memory-lite" is just absurd. (Get a profiler and run some tests if you have trouble believing that.)

It's also hard to argue that a complex generalized solution to some problem will be faster than one written with a specific case or set of cases in mind. The abysmal performance of jQuery for even simple operations is evidence enough of that. (See any one of a zillion tests, or run a few of your own if you can't find one to your liking and you'll see what I mean.)

jQuery isn't stellar, obviously, but it makes jQuery UI and jQuery Mobile look positively light-weight in comparison! jQuery has often been blamed for PhoneGap's performance problems. Again, this is something you can see for yourself.

Even the most ardent jQuery fan will acknowledge that jQuery (expecially jQuery UI and Mobile) is a performance killer, they'll just say "it doesn't matter because computers are getting faster every year" or something equally silly in defense of their favorite library. To claim that jQuery is actually *faster* than a native solution is just crazy.

Just for fun

I really do appreciate a good framework... My favorite one currently is Vanilla-js http://vanilla-js.com/

Check it out. Amazing performance.