Develop Reference

Prototyping for UX: dev plan + jQuery / Framework?

I started to work as a UX designer and until recently have been prototyping using visual tools like Axure or Balsamiq mockups.I've always been drawn to coding though and want to become more code-oriented in my prototyping skills.
I'd like to know your opinion on choosing the right development path in my particular situation. Briefly:
What I know:
HTML + CSS, Bootstrap 4 basics, basic coding concepts (like variables, functions, classes etc.) I recently started to learn vanilla JS basic concepts.
What I want to be able to do
rapidly prototype (in order of importance!) 1. apps(!), 2. dashboards(!), 3. mobile apps, 4. web sites
have intermediate understanding of code and ability to modify it
create dynamic, animated graphs (d3.js?)
(important) dynamic animations of UI elements
Goals:
First of all I want to plan my coding schedule for next 4-5 years in advance. I understand there is no best tool and perfect path, that's why I want to follow "good enough" path.
I don't necessarily look for the newest and shiniest technology. For my purposes it needs to be efficient today and shouldn't die in a few years.
Questions:
I think it's a good idea to keep learning JS to say intermediate point,until I'll get into frameworks/libraries. That's the usual advice, but on the other hand, I only need code as far as prototyping is concerned, maybe results would come faster if I skip to frameworks directly?
If my goal is just prototyping is it still bad idea to learn jQuery afterwards? I see a lot of bad reviews recently. Should I consider (and why) any other frameworks/libs like React? In other words are there any advantages of say React over jQuery for my purposes?
Can I still use css frameworks with JS Frameworks? The concept of latter is to complicated for my now and I wonder if they can be useful for prototyping purposes or it's just a tool for professional developers (so many options, so many tools!).
Thanks!

I think it's a good idea to keep learning JS to say intermediate
point,until I'll get into frameworks/libraries. That's the usual
advice, but on the other hand, I only need code as far as prototyping
is concerned, maybe results would come faster if I skip to frameworks
directly?
Often frameworks have a clear documentation of their functions and methods and therefore I think jumping into a framework directly would spare some time. On parallel learning JS is quite important in order to recognize JS formats and modify your requirements. I would just focus on a framework with a specific goal. Try to implement it and if you encounter some errors just google it, you will definitely find some stack overflow questions.
If my goal is just prototyping is it still bad idea to learn jQuery
afterwards? I see a lot of bad reviews recently. Should I consider
(and why) any other frameworks/libs like React? In other words are
there any advantages of say React over jQuery for my purposes?
It is never bad to learn jQuery. A lot of external libraries are build based on jQuery. I would really recommend this book: "Jon Duckett-
JavaScript & JQuery" which will help you understand the basics of jQuery. I do not see any advantages of React over jQuery. Perhaps some other people have different thoughts about that.
Can I still use css frameworks with JS Frameworks? The concept of
latter is to complicated for my now and I wonder if they can be useful
for prototyping purposes or it's just a tool for professional
developers (so many options, so many tools!).
Sure, JS Frameworks often only focus on creating dynamic content or establishing functionality within your prototype. It does not really influence your CSS. You can easily use for example node.js in combination with bootstrap CSS .

SproutCore vs. Cappuccino

Aside from the language differences Javascript vs. Objective-J what benefits does Cappuccino provide over SproutCore and vice-versa in your experiences?
In terms of a long-term forecast, is SproutCore more "supported" than Cappuccino because it is backed by Apple?
I am trying to choose between the two. I am both familiar with JavaScript and Objective-C.

This is an interesting question, and one that has been popping up fairly frequently on various messages groups, twitter, and even IRC. There's a couple of ways to evaluate SproutCore versus Cappuccino, but, perhaps, some of the immediate caparisons that people look at are the following:
1) Their respective feature set
2) Ease of use
3) Community support and documentation
Let's look at the first point -- there respective feature set. By "feature set" there's a couple of ways to look at it. From the number of UI widgets they have; the foundational support to connect things together and communicate with some kind of back-end; the framework's general architectural approach, although not necessarily a "feature", but still important; and, yes, even the language you can use.
Regarding language, I think it's important that you do not dismiss what is being used (JS versus Obj-J). Why? Because of adoption and where you are coming from. SproutCore came from the perspective that JavaScript is indeed the language of the web, so it's what you use to program against the framework. Where JavaScript lacks in language OO completeness (proper object-object inheritance, etc) it makes up for in the framework (e.g. MyApp.Foo = SC.Object.extend({...})). Cappuccino comes in from a different angle. They use Obj-J as a primary language enhancement to JS in order to inject language features that JS is missing; this instead of injecting those language features directly into the framework (Cappuccino) itself. Of course, as the folks over at Cappuccino have noted before, you can still use JS to program against Cappuccino proper, but, then, you miss out on what Obj-J provides. Note to the Cappuccino community: Please correct me if I'm wrong :-). Finally, if you're someone who is already familiar with Obj-C then Obj-J may be more your cup of tea. Hey, even Sony is apparently now jumping on the whole Obj-C bandwagon to develop against their mobile platform :-P.
Looking at the architecture of the two frameworks, they both looked at Apple's Cocoa framework for guidance/inspiration in one form or another. Cappuccino took Cocoa fully to heart and basically ported Cocoas API. Again, if you're coming from developing apps in Apple using Cocoa then you're probably going to feel right at home. SproutCore on the other hand took inspiration from Cocoa where it felt right. As for pure architecture, they both follow MVC, they both make use of Cocoa-style bindings, they both have a data store mechanism, and they both have their own respective style of rendering and composing UI widgets/views.
The rendering of views is, to me, a particular area of importance. Both frameworks have some level abstraction in order to remove you from directly dealing with CSS and HTML even though at the end of the day they have to render to what the web browser ultimately understands.
On the Cappuccino side, they completely abstract away CSS and HTML from you. Instead, you use the framework's various rendering primitives to "draw" your views. Because of this level of abstraction, Cappuccino can make use of the best rendering approach available instead of coupling you, to some degree, with CSS and HTML.
As for SproutCore, you are rendering closer to the "metal" so to speak. When doing a pure rendering of a view, you make use of a rendering context object that provides a certain degree of abstraction, but, ultimately, you are directly injecting HTML and adding class names to apply CSS. Even after your view has been rendered and you want to manipulate certain parts of the view based on an event, you can directly access to the DOM elements and manipulate their properties. Depending on where you are coming from this may seem good or bad. Good for those who are used to working with CSS and HTML and like the more direct control over how the views are rendered and styled. Bad if you want to generically render a view in order to make use of the best render approach based on what the browser allows (HTML/CSS, SVG, HTML5 canvas, etc). But, note, there are future plans to make SproutCore have a more abstract rendering approach but still allow you to directly work with HTML and CSS if you so choose. So you'll eventually get the best of both worlds.
Now, as for the stock UI widgets/views the two frameworks come with -- they both have a lot right out of the box in order to get you going. Buttons, labels, lists, segmented views, radio buttons, scrollers, etc -- they're all there. Therefore, it's safe to say you're fine in both camps.
Going all the way back, let's now discuss the ease of use. To me, ease of use is based on you own personal experience working with JavaScript, HTML, Obj-C, Cocoa, other MVC frameworks, documentation, and community support. If you've never worked with Cocoa, or never built a decktop- or iPad-like app, then it's fair to say you're going to have a bit of a learning curve no matter what framework you choose. That being said, what you don't know and want to learn can be acquired through each framework's respective community and docs. Both have active communities in one for or another, so you won't be left out in the cold if you get stuck somewhere. As for docs, Cappuccino, admittedly, has the upper hand. The docs for SproutCore are lacking, but the code base is at least fully commented. The SproutCore community is fully aware of the docs needing to be updated, and it is currently something that is being dealt with, so keep checking.
Finally, you mentioned the long-term forecast for the two frameworks. It's public knowledge that Motorola bought the Cappuccino framework, so you certainly have a big company backing its growth and longevity, or at least it seems like that way for now. As for Apple and SproutCore, I personally can't speak for them, but Apple does not own the framework. There are many companies and various individuals that all use and contribute back to the framework in some way. That might give some people and companies pause or discomfort for those who are looking at SproutCore due to the more organic nature of the framework's development, but I don't see that as a problem. My feeling is that both frameworks will be around for a long time, especially now that more are looking at developing next generation desktop and iPad apps using open source frameworks. And, hey, competition between the frameworks is good -- keeps everyone on their respective toes :-).
Hope this information helps you out with your decision!
Cheers,
Mike

I'd like to touch on the comments made about objective-j Michael.
You're not going to lose anything if you drop down to JavaScript instead of objective-j. In all actuality the distinction is kind of difficult to make, especially in cases where we have toll-free bridged classes (more on that in a bit).
Objective-j is really just a thin wrapper over js. It provides classical inheritance something that has traditionally been implemented as a language feature, which sproutcore implements as a framework feature, it also provides code importing, accessor generation, static scoping, and support for messaging nil.
Objective-j instance variables are accessible via the traditional dot syntax if you want... I like to think of it like this: once you start writing a method, you're mostly writing JavaScript. That is, loops, variables, functions, closures, etc are all just javascript. You're not losing anything by dropping down, that's exactly how the language is designed.
We take it a step further by "toll-free bridging" some of our classes CPDate, CPArray, CPException, CPString and perhaps more that I can't recall. Toll free bridging just means a CPArray IS a native js array, and a native js array is a CPArray, so you can use methods and functions of both world interchangeably.
So for example would could do:
var foo = [];
[foo addObject:"bar"];
foo.push("2nd push");
var value = foo[0];
var value2 = [foo objectAtIndex:0];
alert(value === value2); //true
As you can see I'm using objective-j syntax and js syntax together... You can imagine the power if this.
The final thing I want to put out ther, just to make sure there is no confusion: objective-j gets parsed in the browser. It doesn't need to be compiled before hand (although we provide compilation tools for when you're ready to deploy your app).
I think some people are needlessly put off by objective-j as if it's some monstrous beast that will take time to learn, and while objective-j adds a lot of great features to js, to actually learn them won't really take you the better part of a day if you're already familiar with object oriented programming, and obviously if you're coming from cocoa you'll be able to jump right in.

I wrote a blog article exactly about "cappuccino vs. sproutcore". It is not a technical comparison but compares other interesting data.
http://elii.info/2010/11/cappuccino-vs-sproutcore/

From the Cappuccino website:
"On the other end of the existing frameworks are technologies like SproutCore. While SproutCore set out with similar goals to Cappuccino, it takes a distincly different approach. It still relies on HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Prototype, and an entirely new and unique set of APIs. It also requires special development software and a cumbersome compilation step. We think this is the wrong approach.
With Cappuccino, you don't need to know HTML. You'll never write a line of CSS. You don't ever have interact with DOM. We only ask developers to learn one technology, Objective-J, and one set of APIs. Plus, these technologies are implementations of well known and well understood existing ones. Developers can leverage decades of collective experience to really accelerate the pace of building rich web applications."
So it seems that Cappuccino does not have/need any build tools, and completely abstracts the browser away from the developer. Whereas in Sproutcore you get build tools (a development server, for example) and the developer should be somewhat aware of what DOM is.

Michael Cohens answer pretty much covered everything since it was extremely detailed.
I have been struggling with a decision for the past 3 weeks. I have read everything there is out on the web about both frameworks and I have written a lot of source samples with both and still cannot make a decision. The following issues have me jumping from one framework to the other and keep making my decision tougher.
Sproutcore has a better data store api than the one cappuccino has.
Sproutcore makes use of bindings better than cappuccino currently does. Cappuccino does also have kvc/kvo support but bindings are not totally there yet. For example in sproutcore you can implement incremental loading with bindings and ArrayController very easily where on the other hand in cappuccino its not as straightforward. Of course cappuccino offers the CPTableView DataStore api which is pretty clean and can achieve similar results just not with bindings. Its what cocoa did before core data. Bindings are constantly being worked on in cappuccino though.
Cappuccino has a better view api according to my personal taste. Although I am used to developing html and the DOM I much prefer the idea of abstracting the DOM completely away and getting rid of css.
One issue that is really important to me is the lack of a good TableView in sproutcore. Currently SC.TableView is in alpha and it is not performant at all. I dont know of a timeline for the tableview in sproutcore. I tried asking on the irc sproutcore channel but got no satisfying answer. Cappuccino on the other hand has a great and very optimized table view.
I have found more real world applications written on cappuccino than on sproutcore. There is also a pretty nice full blown application that is provided by cappuccino as a source sample and is very helpful. Check out http://githubissues.heroku.com/.
Despite the fact that I have no experience in objective-c and I much prefer the pure js syntax I will probably go with cappuccino on my current project and hope sproutcore comes out with a better table view in the future.

Rich Javascript UI Frameworks, EXT, DOJO and YUI

Disclaimer & Long Winding Question Approaching
I know topics like this have been beaten to death here so suffice to say I'm not asking about which framework is better, I don't really care about opinions on the better framework. They all do pretty amazing things.
The Question
Given that I have an existing web application, made of mostly regular HTML+CSS (jQuery where needed), which is the optimal framework to integrate a few "rich" pages into typically a regular stream of HTML.
Reason
I am trying to bring our proven application into the realm of awesome desktop like UI but I want to do it one small piece, one screen at time. But for our users, support personel and especially me taking it slow is the only option.
Also, with our branding requirements having a framework that just takes over the viewport isn't an option, it has to play nice with other HTML on the screen.
Imagine the example being a rich user manager in an otherwise plain HTML+CSS environment.
Experience Thus Far
Dojo + Dijit
Pros: The new 1.5 widgets plus the claro theme is the cure for what ails us. Dojo seems to be able to use markup to create the UI which is very appealing and has a fair amount of widgets.
Cons: Holy bloated lib Batman! Dojo seems to be enormous and I have to learn a custom build system to get it to stop requesting 4,800 javascript files. This complex empire of Javascript makes me believe I won't be able to create much that isn't already there.
ExtJS
Pros: Amazing set of widgets, does everything we could possibly want. Seems quick, every version brings new improvements.
Cons: I'm not sure how to use this without the entire display being EXT. I'm still building a web site, so I would prefer something that could integrate into what we already have. Some pointers here would be great.
YUI
Pros: Well, it's Yahoo isn't it? AWS console is downright wicked. Plenty of support and a giant community.
Cons: Well, it's Yahoo isn't it? AWS console is the only wicked thing. Complex for someone who's used to jQuery.
Help Me
I am willing to accept experience, links to ways to solve problems I've outlined, new toolkits (even though I'm pretty sure I've seen most by now) or even just advice.

Regarding ExtJS, it's pretty easy to start it in an existing div with something like this:
Ext.onReady(function() {
App = new Ext.Panel({...})
App.render('div-id')
});
The App panel can then have it's own layout manager.

This might be useful if you're familiar with jQuery, but not yet familiar with YUI 3 syntax: http://www.jsrosettastone.com/
Each of the libs you listed is excellent. When embarking on a larger scale project, the quality of a lib's documentation, community, and commitment to support become more relevant.

With Dojo, keep in mind that outside of dojo base, it only ever loads what you tell it to. But yes, without a built layer, that means it could easily end up requesting 50 JS files at startup for a large application using a bunch of widgets.
There are several pages in the reference guide documenting the build script: http://www.dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/build/index.html
Rebecca Murphey wrote a nice blog post outlining an example app and build profile that you might find illuminative: http://blog.rebeccamurphey.com/scaffolding-a-buildable-dojo-application
If you get stuck, there's likely to be people in the Dojo IRC channel that can help.
RE ExtJS: I'm not sure what your exact situation is, but keep in mind that if you're intending to use it in commercial non-open-source software, you need to pay for licenses: http://www.sencha.com/store/js/
I'm a little curious as to why you think the size / number of requests is specifically an issue with Dojo though. I haven't used the others, but I'd expect it to be somewhat of a potential concern with any of them.

sproutcore vs javascriptMVC for web app development

I want to use a javascript framework with MVC for a complex web application (which will be one of a set of related apps and pages) for an intranet in a digital archives. I have been looking at SproutCore and JavascriptMVC. I want to choose one framework and stick with it.
Does anybody know what the distinguishing features are when comparing these two?
I want something that is simple, straightforward that I can customize/hack easily, and that doesn't get in my way too much, but that at the same time gives me a basis for keeping my code nicely organized, and event-driven. I also plan on using jquery substantially.
I know sproutcore is backed by Apple, and looks like it is getting more popular by the day, and it has a nice green website :), whereas JavascriptMVC looks less professional, with less of a following and less momentum behind it.
I've done the tutorials for both and I was impressed by SproutCore more (in the JMVC tutorial you don't really do anything substantial) - but somewhere in the back of my mind I feel that JMVC might just be better because it doesn't try and do too much - it just gives you MVC functionality based on a couple of jquery plugins, and you can use jquery for everything else, so its flexible. Whereas SproutCore seems to have more of its own API etc... which is also nice in a way... but then you're kind of stuck within that.... hmmm I'm confused :).
Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

Being a JavaScriptMVC contributor, I'm extremely biased. But I'll try to give the best answer I can.
JavaScriptMVC has also taken years to develop. But instead of focusing on ui functionality, it focused on the layers just below that. There are a few reasons for this:
You can find a jQuery widget to meet almost every need. There's no reason to compete these plugins. Instead, JavaScriptMVC tries to work with them.
Most people need one or two custom widgets / controls. JavaScriptMVC wants to make building and maintaining these pieces as easy as possible.'
Flexibility+API. I'm not sure exactly how to say this one ... but here's my best shot ... With JavaScriptMVC, we wanted every layer of the application to be as easy to understand and maintain as possible. This is why we picked jQuery as our low-level library. It's API is about the best abstraction for the dom possible. People typically go directly from the low-level API to build the Widget/Control. This is why most jQuery widgets' code look very dissimilar. We wanted a middle layer that organize our code and promote best practices, while providing enough flexibility to meet almost any requirement. So with JavaScriptMVC, you get very solid low and middle-level layers. But, you don't get widgets.
JavaScriptMVC has testing, error reporting, and documentation baked into the framework. The testing is the most impressive part. It has integrated selenium and envjs testing.
My recommendation would be to go with SproutCoreif your requirements can be built pretty straightforward with SproutCore. But if you know jQuery, have to build a lot of custom controls, or need really awesome testing, use JavaScriptMVC.

Funny, because just a month back or so, our team evaluated exactly these 2 frameworks head to head. We ended up choosing JavaScriptMVC, and I've been working hands-on with it for about a month.
I like it ... but, I was a HUGE proponent of SproutCore. I had never heard of either framework before we eval'd them, but once I saw SproutCore and looked under the hood, I was very, very impressed. Honestly, I don't think there's anything out there that can give you the kind of power it gives. Yes, you'll have a learning curve, but it's the kind of thing that lets one person accomplish the work of 5 or 10 once you know it.
So I'd use SproutCore in a heartbeat.
That being said, JavascriptMVC (aka "JMVC") is nice. It doesn't really give you a ton on top of jQuery itself. You will still have some infrastructure to build yourself (depending on how complicated your requirements are). This is both a pro and a con. One nice thing about it is that, if you need to dig into the details of some piece of JMVC, you can ... it is not so incredibly huge that it is impenetrable.
In summary, there's not a thing wrong with JMVC. But there is, in my opinion, nothing even in the ballpark with SproutCore.

I think that the main difference between them is that SproutCore includes a GUI while the JMVC is something low-level without any graphic, so if you need a GUI you can't use JMVC without including other scripts like the jQuery UI or jQuery plugins.
You said that "JMVC might just be better because it doesn't try and do too much" i don't agree with this, it took years before SproutCore 1.0 was released, so developers had the time to make a great product.
I suggest you to use SproutCore, maybe you'll have to learn more things, you'll spend more time to practice and understand everything, but you'll learn how to use a very good framework that can be usefull also for future projects.

Sproutcore-2.0 eliminates the ui-constraints and plays nice with completely custom app-uis.
http://blog.sproutcore.com/announcing-sproutcore-2-0/
http://blog.sproutcore.com/dispatches-from-the-edge-dropping-in-a-sproutcore-2-0-application/

What are the arguments against using a JavaScript Framework for a Web site development company? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Our company builds websites and web applications. We are a small firm and our team of developers are always building the javascript functions from scratch or copying from other websites built by us. Every time I bring to the table the word standardization and using a JS framework like JQuery, Prototype or any other, I am told Frameworks have the three points below as arguments against them:
Mainly for people that don't know enough JS
Frameworks limit Javascript developers
Frameworks bloat the actual development code with a lot of things that are not used.
We don't use enough Javascript in our applications for us to need JS framework
In my mind it seems that Frameworks, give our team a good starting point, documentation, a community and always the option to grow on top of the framework. Could some Framework users elaborate further?
EDIT 1:
Thanks to all of you for your great responses. I really did not think that this was going to be such a hot topic. I am glad I asked the question. I posted another similar question in the following link in case you might think you want to add something. The topic of the new question is CSS related. Thanks.

By your coworkers point of view, .NET and JAVA are for people who don't know enough assembly.
Frameworks exist for a reason. They allow you go focus on the problem instead of dealing with repetitive code. They allow you to be confident (assuming you use well tested frameworks) that certain pieces of your code are reliable and well tested.
If your coworkers are against frameworks, I would seriously consider moving on.

Since no one has mentioned it - a Javascript framework rapidly becomes one more project dependancy, and in general terms, dependencies are bad as they represent points of failure.
As for this:
Mainly for people that don't know
enough JS
Without elaborating, I will say that if one of our team said something like that in my presence, I would try to shrug it off as a joke. If I thought they were being serious, I would probably have to kill them.
And as for this:
Frameworks limit Javascript
developers
That could translate to "Frameworks make it marginally harder to write spaghetti code, and that's what I do best"
Those are not arguments, they are excuses.

Arguments against:
Frameworks prevent you from re-inventing the wheel
Frameworks generally contain well tested code
Frameworks are well supported by the community
Frameworks force you to focus on the business problem you're trying to solve
</sarcasm>
Frameworks may have a license you don't agree/can't work with

A few positives for javascript frameworks (like JQuery).
They provide standardization in ui
elements.
Reduce time to develop complex
interfaces and effects.
Normalize efforts by providing
functions that are already
cross-browser compatible.
Due to efforts in cross
compatibility documentation is more
useful in a framework as you can use
the framework's api as canon
instead of searching for obscure
support for various/proprietary
javascript functions.
Reduced learning curve for new
developers making them productive on
your software quicker.
I completely disagree that a framework limits javascript developers. Quite the opposite actually. Most frameworks provide extensive plug-in mechanisms where the framework can be extended using raw javascript utilizing hooks in the framework itself.

I'll use jQuery as an example, but what I'm saying here could apply to most JavaScript frameworks.
Many frameworks (notably jQuery) are far too monolithic and not modular enough.
While depending on well-tested 3rd party software is often more than justified, "frameworks" tend to give you a lot more functionality than you need at the moment.
In many projects, I very much like the convenience that jQuery gives me for selecting sets of elements (using $(".classname"), for example). But, if I'm not using any significant amount of AJAX, I don't need the AJAX utilities provided by jQuery.
Software should do one thing and do it well, and software written in JavaScript is no exception. Most of the frameworks you refer to try to do everything, resulting in unnecessary complexity.
One place this can bite you is when you're considering upgrading to the next version of the framework. That involves crawling through jQuery's changelogs for backwards-incompatible changes and searching your project for areas where that code is used. This can be quite a nightmare, especially if you don't necessarily have a comprehensive list of which jQuery features you use and which ones you don't.
Also, jQuery (and other frameworks) tends to cause developers to start depending on new features of jQuery without even thinking about it, making it harder to determine which features of jQuery your project uses and which it doesn't.
If you use a utility which does one thing, then you know exactly which features of that utility you're using. There's only one. (If you aren't using that utility at all, it's easy to determine. Such a determination would mean you could safely remove it from your project.)
I'm all for using well-tested 3rd party code. But if it tries to do too much, (that is, if it's a framework rather than a utility), you should probably look for an alternative. If it tries to do too much (like jQuery tries to do too much), then it's got some serious, foundational design flaws that will probably come back to bite you.

I'm surprised no one has already mentioned it:
A lot of web developers default to using JQuery without considering the alternatives
And end up including it on a web page to do a few trivial tasks which could easily be done in pure JavaScript
The result is that users have to wait for the whole library to download and it slows down web browsing
Also:
Some web developers get carried away with the design of web pages, and end up developing unnecessarily complex web pages because of the power of JQuery
Just because JQuery enables you to create scripts with good cross-browser compatibility it doesn't mean that the end result is usable on different devices / interfaces
I'd also argue the cross-browser compatibilty because I've seen instances of webkit not playing well with JQuery
JQuery encourages "fast" scripting - but if you rush it you are likely to have missed something out
Writing in JavaScript from scratch is slower - but I believe that you end up with a more complete solution which more closely matches the users needs
Using JQuery can shift the focus of the web developer to creating web sites which are highly graphical and visually appealing, whereas the focus should be on functionality and usability
JQuery is not a silver bullet for web development
I am biased here because I don't use JQuery, but it is because I haven't found a need for it yet - maybe it's because I focus more on usability and functionality rather than making the user interface look pretty (sorry I know JQuery can do more than that).

An argument against libraries is BROWSER SUPPORT most libraries support only a subset of browsers out there .
Here is an example of BBC rolling out their own instead of using something like jquery .

I liked the answer of pb +
Mainly for people that don't know
enough JS
I believe it is too complicated for them, so they use this excuse. FW allows you to build much more complex applications.
Frameworks limit Javascript developers
bullshit
Frameworks bloat the actual
development code with a lot of things
that are not used.
what is it today extra 100k-200k? especially if you use the CDN versions (at google for instance). And this is assuming you use nothing in the FW.

There are plenty of good reasons to be suspicious of frameworks in general, balanced of course by lots of reasons why they are worthwhile.
I use jquery now, and frankly within an hour of learning it realised that it fits the job so well that if it didn't exist I'd only end up reimplementing something very similar myself, only it wouldn't be as good or as cross platform.
There isn't much bloat there, it's very small and well designed and does nothing at all that stops you writing any javascript you want for specific cases that don't fit your needs.