Jun 17

I've been a web designer and "programmer wannabe" for many years. I finally succumb to the fact, my mind can't grasp higher programming, but I know enough to annoy and push programmers to accomplish more. And javascript frameworks fall under this topic.

 

Javascript and Ajax exploded onto the web a few years ago

Around the Web 2.0 hey day, Ajax and javascript frameworks exploded onto the scene. Before that most javascript was custom or adapted on an ad hoc basis. It worked, but it didn't provide the sophisticated interfaces we've all come to enjoy until very smart people started to mash javascript into "object oriented" frameworks. Essentially, they took care of the heavy lifting and coerced javascript into a consistent experience across platforms and across browsers. It was no small feat.

 

This is where I come in. Many moons ago, I too wanted to build rich web experiences, but I never wanted to use Flash (that's a different story). So naturally I was drawn to the new javascript frameworks everyone talked about. They seemed magical. You could create flash-like effects and your site would still validate. And this was even before the iPhone popped on the scene and cause everyone to spurn Flash for javascript. The problem was, being only a dabbling programmer, which javascript framework would be best? And how would I even evaluate them?

First came Prototype.js and script.aculo.us

Fortunately, there weren't as many to choose from a few years ago. So my first experience was with Prototype.js and script.aculo.us. Prototype was the framework and script.aculo.us handled the effects. Of course ever the avid web browser (no pun intended) my enthusiasm waned for this dynamic duo, not because it was incapable, but because the next big framework offered greener pastures.

MooTools emerged the front runner

The web buzzed about MooTools and often you read that "true die hard programmers" used MooTools. So ever the wannabe I started to switch. This made my programmers oh so happy - since I had just forced them to start learning Prototype - and now I directed them to abandon that for MooTools. Oh well call me fickle.

 

MooTools was terrific. It seemed robust and well documented (as if I could tell) and to have the effects built into a single framework, well that seemed better. Right? Well to tell the truth, I don't know. MooTools is a terrific framework. It earned the praise of my now weary programmers so that was positive. But from my designer's perspective - it lacked a little. Not in programming stature - but in support and "snippets". By snippets I mean pre-made "classes" and add-ons that you can fit into your site design. There were plenty, but not as many as the new comer jQuery.

Enter jQuery

It seemed to come from no where. Suddenly every article and every top designer were praising jQuery and it's reliability and friendliness to web designers. For a long while I resisted - after all - the pros used MooTools (like us). But eventually, it was inescapable - the tide had turned. jQuery became the standard framework in so many applications and open source projects - it was impossible to resist. More importantly its use had exploded to the point that the web was littered with code snippets and add-ons. In fact, that's what spurred our switch - I wanted to use an add-on that was readily available in jQuery. Sure I could have paid to have it ported or had my program team rebuild it in MooTools - but jQuery had won the hearts of the web power users. We gave in, we switched.

 

Alas, I still wonder about the paths not taken Dojo, YUI, SPRY, Google Web Toolkit? Each offers something I'm sure - but for now we continue to use jQuery. It's stable and add-on and snippets are readily available. Not that jQuery is superior - I couldn't tell if it was - but it's now so ubiquitous - it may have won the war. Its large active developer community certainly indicates it's the leader - it has the mind share - it's it. An unstoppable force perhaps? The best? Who knows. But I can state for certain, If you need something, some effect, without question you can do a quick google search and find exactly what you're looking for or something very close to it already exists - and it's made with jQuery.

 

Until the next javascript framework's siren call - it's jQuery for us

So for now we use jQuery. In fact, as the need occurs - we convert old sites, made with prototype or mootools, so they're jQuery based. I suppose it's what you're familiar with – that becomes your favorite. For me the deciding factor was the endless jQuery solutions - we don't have to invest development time and money into creating something when we can simply adapt an existing jQuery item. This keeps costs down and keeps our options wide open. Choice won out.

 

Of course, it all depends on your programmer's preference. Ours, well we forced jQuery upon them. We found something done in jQuery that we wanted and gave them the option - switch to jQuery or rebuild this jQuery effect in MooTools (on your own time). The choice was easy and jQuery was our new standard.

 

So my conclusion? Well use what you're comfortable with - but approach each project with an open mind. For us, during the design phase, we'll google for the effects and treatments we want - if we find something close or exact built in jQuery - we're good to go. This also allows us to prototype the design online quickly - so the client can see it and how it works. We now have a library of effects and solutions we easily implement into our new web designs. Drop menus, calendars, sliders, carousels, etc. - all done in jQuery. Of course we had the same in MooTools too - so perhaps someday we'll switch again. But only if another framework appears that offers us more options - and currently - that seems unlikely.

 

Here's a wikipedia comparison of leading javascript frameworks

 

NOTE: Oh and yes, we know, our current site uses MooTools, but we're redesigning now, and it'll all be jQuery.