Vanilla JS, fast, lightweight, cross-platform framework

I can't be the only one getting tired of sites like this making the front page. Really? It would be one thing to see someone write a legitimate article on why they think the move to JS frameworks is harmful and/or the benefits of using plain JS, and for that to make it to the front page. I'd be interested in that perspective. But this is just somebody being snide. It's the internet equivalent of the kid on The Simpsons that points and goes "ha-ha!" There's no content. We can't have a discussion around a smartass joke like this.

Fast and lightweight, yes. But vanilla-js is certainly not cross platform ;) You see, that's actually one of the biggest problems with JS and one of the main reasons why people use things like jQuery (apart from the pretty API..).<p>That cross platform bit is the weakest link <i>sigh</i>.

This site could actually be made useful if the little area where you check which "features" you want to include that "generated" the download file actually caused cross-platform, native JavaScript examples of those bits of functionality to be included in a real downloadable file.<p>If you really think more people should be using plain vanilla JavaScript (and in a lot of places, I think this is actually true and even when a framework is needed, it's good to have the underlying skill) then the way to get them to do that is to educate them on it, not patronize.

Raw Javascript is simply not an option. The API is awful, default types are not powerful enough and cross-platform consistency is a joke. For every decently sized project you start in JS you have to reinvent a thousand wheels to even get rolling, so you better just leverage a framework.

Wow, even jQuery is written using vanilla-js.

Does anyone else find the code examples absolutely damning?<p>Aside from not being cross-platform, VanillaJS is just plain ugly.

Recently, I was interviewing a front-end developer candidate and I gave them a simple JavaScript problem. The sad thing was, they didn't recognize `document.getElementById()` and didn't know any of the parameters to `addEventListener()`.<p>We finished the exercise assuming the example used jQuery instead.

Was anyone else surprised by the performance penalty of jQuery? Over 400x hit for getElementsByTagName! I'm curious whether this is more due to cross browser checks or determining the what type of selector was used. To the source!

<a href="http://vaporjs.com/" rel="nofollow">http://vaporjs.com/</a> is way better, and was here first.

Question: is the 'Speed Comparison' for real? I find it really, really hard to believe. Surely jQuery &#38; co. revert to native implementations (if they exists, as they do in all modern browsers) for things like `document.getElementById` and don't iterate over the whole DOM.

Not sure why Vanilla JS doesn't require &#60;script&#62; tags, whereas jQuery apparently does.

I love pure JavaScript. jQuery is overrated and most libraries are only good for one thing or the other, nothing can replace the joy and performance of Vanilla JS!

these sites are getting really old

The features generator is a nice touch.

I would have liked a compatibility chart between this and the other frameworks.

$.ajax({ type: 'POST', url: "path/to/api", data: "banana=yellow", success: function (data) { alert("Success: " + data); }, });<p>can be written as<p>jQuery.post('path/to/api',{banana:yellow},function(data){alert("Success: "+data);});<p>much simpler and easy than<p>var r = new XMLHttpRequest(); r.open("POST", "path/to/api", true); r.onreadystatechange = function () { if (r.readyState != 4 || r.status != 200) return; alert("Success: " + r.responseText); }; r.send("banana=yellow");<p>nevermind got the joke. but i think jQuery helps write faster code sometimes

wow, the list of the companies using vanilla.js is impressive. if those put their trust in this framework, it surely must be good.

It confuses me if you describe a JS framework as cross platform. Isn't that the whole point of using JS?

The first book listed on the "Books" link is: JavaScript &#38; jQuery: The Missing Manual<p>Heh.

Given how optimized jquery is, does anyone understand why something as simple as getting an element by id would be so much slower than Dom methods?

Get back to me when Vanilla.js has a way to handle document ready, and then I'll believe that it's cross-platform.

If nothing else, the word doc look is pretty amusing :)

I want to use vanilla.js, do you think I should minify it and serve with gzip compression? Anyone know if it will pass JSLint?

nope you have to use codesmell jquery and backbone :p

hkjk

ANYWAY, Lol at that... made me chuckle.

So many JS frameworks, so little time...