Is it good or okay to have several frameworks in a project, or is it bad because it gets cluttered (= a mess), and the loading times maybe get's longer. Does some 100 K matter really? Or should you stick with one?
It's generally better to pick one thing and stick with it, for a number of reasons:
Fewer dependencies.
Lower complexity.
Easier to maintain.
Faster loading times.
No likelihood of dependency conflicts (i.e. jQuery can't conflict with your other Javascript framework if you only have one).
Lower debugging times.
It's true that an extra ~50k these days probably isn't going to kill anybody for a personal site or blog. The benefit comes when you scale to larger sizes, and all those extra 50k hits are eating into your bottom line. But even if you're just doing this for a small site, the savings on your sanity from figuring out problems quicker will easily be worth it.
That said, if you just need one part of a specific piece of a Javascript framework, the larger ones are often split into logical chunks, so that you can just take the piece you need rather than the entire framework. Most are rich enough these days that if framework X has a feature you want, but you're using framework Y, you can pretty much just map the source code for that feature directly into framework Y.
If you can load the javascript library from a repository where it would be cached on the first visit, then i don't really see any problem with that.
But, for uniformity sake i will go with one javascript library.
But, if you really have any strong reason to use two, then go ahead. As far as it is cached the first time.
Just adding something to John's words, one could choose, for example, JQuery, which allows you to use it without clashing with other libraries. I remember that once, I had troubles while trying prototype and mootools because I wanted some things from the former and some other from the latter, but it was long ago and maybe it was solved.
Somehow, I've found that it's easier to maintain a single library and there're a few real differences between them. It related more to the way each one approaches to map documents and apply things to their elements, which causes differences in response time, but the goal happens to be the same.
Good luck with your choice :)
PS. If you gzip and fix etags in the stuff you offer in your webapps, the difference between loading one or two js frameworks is not reeeeaaally important -unless you're in facebook, meebo or so!-. I've found that the yahoo! recommendations are helpful.
http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html
I wouldn't run two frameworks unless there was really no alternative. They often aren't written to play well with others; there are lots of potential ways they can cause unwanted interactions.
For example with jQuery, a lot depends on the user-data key identifiers the library adds as attributes to element nodes. If you start messing with the structure of the document by cloning, adding/removing and so on from another framework (or even just plain DOM methods) then those identifiers aren't as unique as jQuery expects; it can easily get confused and end up failing to call event handlers, or tripping on errors. This sort of thing isn't fun to debug.
Related
I am on a new project and our job is to rewrite an e-commerce website that is having performance problems on mobile devices.
We are re-writing the javascript based on a more object-oriented/modular architecture which I think is great! However my team lead said that we should remove all the jQuery calls and replace with javascript like so domElem.querySelectorAll(query) , which has better performance. I understand jQuery does some kind of caching in the background which can create memory issues.
I am a little sceptical of this, firstly because it seems like a case of 'premature optimization', that is, we should find the bottle-necks first before we re-write anything. And secondly I haven't found anything on the internet that says that jQuery has significant performance problems.
The current website does have a lot of overlapping dom branch queries which I think creates a lot of redundancy. That is there is too much querying happening, and on our new architectual approach we are restricting our object/module to fewer dom queries and more targeted dom queries which is great. This does need to be re-written.
But whether or not we use domElem.querySelector(query) or $(domElem).find(query), I can't see there as being much of a difference. Is my thinking right?
Some tests are done here (check other revisions as well). Good detailed discussion is done here over pros and cons of using jquery over javascript.
Also want to point out that jquery doesn't do any caching of selectors.
The thing we often forget because of using Javascript frameworks all the time is that jQuery is not a framework.
Obviously, if you do the exact same one-operator action using the jQuery '$' object and using a direct DOM method like getElementById, the latter will be noticeably faster as jQuery itself is written in Javascript and does a lot of background stuff.
However, nothing (except code readability) prevents you, as a developer, from combining jQuery with plain Javascript: using plain Javascript wherever possible and only using jQuery functions that provide complex functionality and take some time to write and optimize from scratch. There are a lot of those in jQuery: providing browser-independent css, serializing object and doing lots of other cool stuff.
It depends on the application but usually performance troubles are related to badly-designed algorithms, not the use of jQuery.
In any case, if your application does a lot of DOM-manipulation, it may be worthwhile to re-write it using plain Javascript and test. Keep the library, just don't use it for simple operations you can easily write without it.
If your application is heavily-reliant on jQuery functions with complex functionality, removing it is out of the question.
I myself use this combined approach: everything simple written in Javascript with jQuery functions for stuff that is difficult to implement.
Also, a good place to dig around if the app has troubles with performance is the DOM-manipulation. Those operations are very heavy compared to almost everything else in Javascript. You may be able to cut down on time by rolling several operations into one, building finished objects with one constructor, instead of creating empty ones and assigning properties one-by-one, etc.
Sorry, if the answer is a bit vague but it's difficult to be precise in this case without seeing the code and running tests.
Let me quote Uncle Bob about this discussion "Architecture is about intent, we have made it about frameworks and details"
Premature optimizations needs to be considered carefully.
They often result architectural decisions that are not easily revertible.
They introduce code optimizations that are usually specific to the problems they solve, which makes the code less abstract thus hard to
maintain, and more complicated thus prone to more bugs.
They tend to be prejudice and not objective, sometimes without any real comparison to other alternatives.
The problems they are trying to solve tends to be overestimated, to the degree of non-existent.
I'm not a big expert on Web development but if possible, you should always push this kind of decisions to the end by separation of concerns, and good abstraction.
For example over the parts that generate the java-script code you can have an abstraction of JavaScriptWriter, and use different frameworks. This way you can use JQuery at the beginning, test the system and only then replace parts you know to be inefficient.
I am building my own JS library;
The idea is that the library should be comprised of small, independent modules, and some slightly larger utilities, that serve mainly to iron out browser differences.
I am having trouble getting anything done, because I am not being able to decide between staying dry or being loosely coupled.
An example? Given:
A small library that takes care of generating dom elements from a template
Another one that takes care of duck-typing issues (is_function, is_array...)
And a last one that creates modal boxes. That last one needs:
some type checking
will be creating the modals using only one function from the templating library
My options for the modal box library:
Be 100% dry, and dependant on the two other libraries. But that means if you are a user wanting to download only the modal box lib, you'll have to make with the two others
Allow users to pass an object of options on initiation that would allow them to specify the functions needed; defaulting to the ones of the libraries. This is better, but in practice, it still means, in 90% cases, using the provided libraries, as creating functions with the same signature might be cumbersome. Furthermore, it adds complexity to the modal box code.
Be 100% loose, and reproduce the functions needed in my modal box library; possibly more efficient because more targeted and there is no need to check for edge cases; but: any bug will have to be fixed in two places, and my download size increases.
So I am wasting time oscillating between the two extremes, refactoring a million times and never being satisfied.
I was going for a more generic question, but then I realized it is really pertaining to JS, because of the size & performance concern as well as the widespread usage.
Is there any known pattern to follow in such cases? What's the accepted way to go about this? Any thoughts are welcome.
[edit:]
This is the only article I found that spells out my concerns. Like the article says,
DRY is important, but so are [...] low coupling and high cohesion. [...] You have to take all [principles] into account and weigh their relative value in each situation
I guess I am not able to weigh their value in this situation.
Personally, I've always taken the view that Loose Coupling refers to creating seams in your code. In classical languages, such as Java, this is achieved by creating Interfaces which hide the concrete implementation. This is a powerful concept as it allows developers to 'unpick the seams' in your application and replace the concrete implementations with mocks and test doubles (or indeed, their own implementation). As JavaScript is a dynamic language developers rely on duck-typing instead of Interfaces: as nothing is frozen, every object becomes a seam in your code and can be replaced.
In direct answer to your question I think it pays dividends to always aim to decompose and modularize your code into smaller libraries. Not only do your avoid repeating code (not a good idea for a host of reasons) but you encourage re-use by other developers who only want to re-use parts of your library.
Instead of re-inventing the wheel, why not leverage some of the more popular JavaScript libraries that are out there; for example, underscore.js is a lightweight library which provides a rich toolkit for duck-type checks and Mustache.js may well take care of your templating needs.
Many existing projects already use this approach, for example, Backbone.js depends on underscore.js and jQuery Mobile depends on jQuery. Tools such as RequireJS make it easy to list and resolve your application's javascript dependencies and can even be used to combine all the separate.js files into a single, minified resource.
I like the concept of DRY, but your right it has a couple of problems.
Your end-user-developers will need to know that they need to download the dependencies of components.
Your end-user-developers will need to know that they need to configure the dependencies (i.e. the options to pass in).
To help solve 1. your project website could customise the download on the fly, so the core code is downloaded along with optional components. Like the modernizer download page.
To help solve 2. Rather than allowing users to pass in options, use sensible defaults to detect what parts of your packages have been loaded in the browser and automatically tie them up.
This loose coupling could also give you the great advantage that could also rely on 3rd party frameworks if the user already has them installed. For example selectivizr allows you to use jquery or dojo etc etc depending on what the browser has already loaded.
Perhaps you could use requirejs to help solve dependency management. I get the impression it's not really meant for libraries to use directly, but instead the end-user-developer... but it could be a nice fit.
I realise my answer doesn't answer your question directly, but perhaps it could help balance out some of the negative points of DRY.
I'm using mostly Javascript on my scripting. I have some scripts which do several tasks every 1 second, and some every 0.02 seconds, etc. My intervals do tasks like checking of ifs, doing some innerHTML, little animation, etc. Now I have 4, but I think it would increase in the future; maybe I'll control myself to less than 10. Though it doesn't lag at all in my computer.
Generally, will it be good for a site?
Since it's client-side obviously there won't be any issues with internet connection, right?
Is it a bad practice, or is it not much of an issue at all?
Also, I have a question for jQuery. There are things that normal Javascript and jQuery can do similarly (like innerHTML and .html()), right? Given this situation, which should I prefer to use, jQuery or Javascript?
Thank you.
Is having too many setTimeout()s good?: You already gave your self the answer too many is not good, no matter what you talk about.
Generally will it be good for the site: Probably not, remember you don't know the cpu/browser combo of your users, so you should build your site so it will still be nice to use for people who have slower computers than you. A laggy/unresponsive site is the first one users will flee from.
Since it's client-side obviously there won't be any issues with internet connection, right? right, unless you do network requests as part of the timeouts. Ajax calls every second is rarely a good idea.
Is it a bad practice, or is it not much of an issue at all? poor architecture is bad practice. If you wish to follow the best practices, read up on design patterns.
Also, I have a question for jQuery. There are things that normal Javascript and jQuery can do similarly (like innerHTML and .html()), right? Given this situation, which should I prefer to use, jQuery or Javascript? Using jQuery gives you convinient crossbrowser compatibility. In most cases for non-experts using a library like jQuery is better than not using it.
Generally, will it be good for a site?
Most of the other answerers are saying no, but they can't possibly make this claim without more information. This decision is specific to your site. It might be perfectly fine. Don't make guesses about performance. Measure things. Fix performance issues where they really exist, not where your gut tells you they exist.
Since it's client-side obviously there won't be any issues with internet connection, right?
Correct.
Is it a bad practice, or is it not much of an issue at all?
There are lots of tasks that are best performed with a timeout callback. If you need to do something periodically, or after a certain amount of time has passed, then setTimeout is not only reasonable to use, it's specifically designed for those tasks.
For your first question, it's more a case of what you're doing in each callback that gets called after the timeout. Without knowing that it's hard to provide a clearer answer.
But remember that javascript is single threaded in the browser, so if you're running expensive operations regularly it's not going to work well. If you're looking to do animations with this, I'd strongly urge you to consider one of the existing libraries first (dojo, jquery, mootools etc) and only try and implement this yourself if you find them insufficient. A lot of work has gone into making those libraries performant and it's unlikely you'll do better on a first stab.
Second question: Again, I'd use the library. For a simple innerHTML there's unlikely to be much difference, but in the general case a library like jQuery or Dojo will help to cover over the differences between the DOMs in the different browsers, catch the nasty edge cases you don't know (or want to know) about and is likely to be better tested and supported than your own code. Get it working their way, then optimise with your own vanilla JS if/when you need to.
1) Generally good: no, in general it creates processor load, which slows down the browser. But that will be influenced more by the actual code than the timeouts itself. But modern day browser don't have any problems with 10 timers... ;)
2) Yeah, no problem with the timeout.
3) No, it's the only way to do asynchronous processing. so it isn't really an issue ;)
4) The difference with innerHTML and .html() (and other jQuery functions) is that jQuery has better cross-browser implementations. It knows the quirks of certain browsers and is able to circumvent them. For simple problems plain 'ol JavaScript is perfect (and is cheaper in bandwidth and processing power). But for more complex scripts, and once you have chosen to use jQuery, why not use it anyway. ;)
Go with Jquery - Write Less, Do More
You can have so many functions , effects , plugins will help you to save time from coding.
Any way when you are developing a website with javascript or jquery effects , you will be expecting the user should have an updated browser and system.
your functionality not gonna work on ie 5 . :)
So adding time out and js functions will not affect performance as per my understanding.
http://api.jquery.com/delay/
http://api.jquery.com/toggle/
http://api.jquery.com/html/
Go with jquery api functions and develop your own..instead of usng plugins.
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 2 years ago.
Improve this question
(I understand that someone else asked a similar question and it was closed as 'argumentative', but I'm really interested in understanding the arguments around this.)
I know JavaScript really well. I've been writing it professionally for years. I've internalized a lot of the cross-browser incompatibilities and sketchiness, know DOM manipulation like the back of my hand, have worked with some of the best web developers in the industry & picked up a lot of their mojo.
I've been checking out jQuery. I understand the point of a javascript library (how many times have I written animation, getElementsByClass, and hide/show functions?). But to be honest, it seems like a waste of time to learn an entirely new syntax that isn't less complex. It seems like I'd be bashing my head against a wall to learn an entirely new interface to the same old JavaScript.
I'm not technically an engineer, so maybe I'm missing something. Could someone spell out the tradeoffs of jQuery? Is it really faster to learn and understand jQuery syntax than to just learn JavaScript?
There are a few big benefits to using a framework over homegrown/handwritten code:
Abstractions. I'm sure you're very proud of the fact that you've slung enough JS to be able to write animations from scratch. You should be! However, abstracting common functionality away from yourself is actually very liberating. You just call the method and know the innards will be executed, and executed well. Even if you're very fast at writing the low-level stuff yourself, that's still time you've spent on that instead of solving today's problems.
Common language. Using a common framework is like speaking a common language. You can collaborate with other developers very easily, and each can pick up where others left off without friction. (Compared to stepping into an application which uses a homegrown library for the things jQuery can do.)
Experts. The people working on jQuery are JavaScript gods. I am really, really good at JavaScript, and you probably are too, but there's a big difference between normal good and jQuery good. A team of insanely good people are constantly poring over a small set of common functionality - tuning it, tweaking it, enhancing it to make it the best it can possibly be. That represents a huge number of man-hours a single person like you or me simply cannot reproduce, no matter how good we are. And if you are as good as the jQuery guys, you can only benefit by combining your talent with theirs and contributing to the jQuery codebase. It's a melting pot of insane talent.
I'm not technically an engineer, so maybe I'm missing something. Could someone spell out the tradeoffs of jQuery? Is it really faster to learn and understand jQuery syntax than to just learn JavaScript?
jQuery is more than "just another interface" to Javascript. It allows you to express yourself in ways that are more compact and succincter than the corresponding Javascript implementation. At the same time, it's clearer and much more powerful. Specifically, the benefits you get include:
Expressiveness. jQuery is essentially a DSL for DOM manipulation and querying. This specificity is a major source of its utility and effectiveness.
Cross-browser. To a very large extent, jQuery is "write once, run anywhere". Even in 2009, this is still a surprisingly rare feat for web-based platforms. It's gratifying and relieving to know that you won't have to waste time debugging obscure problems on IE6 (well, most of the time).
Highly complete documentation. As a developer, I prize APIs and frameworks that have taken the time to spell out what all the moving pieces are supposed to be doing. Nothing is more encouraging than knowing that (1) things are stable enough that writing documentation isn't an attempt to hit a moving target and (2) things are useful enough that they've attracted enough people to flesh out the documentation fully.
In sum, the difference between Javascript and jQuery is analogous to the difference between assembly and higher-order programming languages. Although they're both technically both "an interface to machine language" and can both do similar things, the latter is considered far more powerful because of how easy it is to represent things and develop rapidly.
One thing I don't see mentioned is that the library is written to work cross browser on a wide range of popular browsers and platforms: IE6+, Firefox 2+, Safari 3+
That alone is reason enough to use jQuery then to write your own JavaScript and have to worry about cross browser issues yourself.
You can't learn jQuery without learning JavaScript, and you can't be a jQuery guru without being a JavaScript guru.
That said, it really is much faster to do things with jQuery than with "bare metal" JavaScript. Moreover, the way one works with jQuery is at a far more abstract level than the way one works with "bare metal" JavaScript. In addition, the jQuery syntax is very basic and not at all hard to learn, although the way you think about jQuery is very different from the way you think about "bare metal" JavaScript but enables you do to much more, much more rapidly.
community support
other developers writting and testing code, make it possible for you to do things you simply do not have time to do. Its not about doing anything you do not know how to do, its about doing things quickly, efficiently, and of very high quality (its already been tested).
From the sounds of it, you know much of the same stuff that jQuery knows about the DOM, and I can only assume you've built-up a nice DOM toolset for yourself over the years that incorporates all of this knowledge. In short, No, you don't need to use jQuery. However, some of the rest of us do not know as much about the DOM, and jQuery levels the playing field so we can get on with getting work done for our clients.
That is not to say you should not learn jQuery (as opposed to using it). You may pickup a few things you didn't know. The 3 main features that distinguish it from other DOM libraries (including your own probably) are:
built-in support for CSS selector syntax, useful for finding elements
methods that operate on the set of wrapped elements
chaining. Every method in jQuery.prototype (with "setter" behaviour) returns this
Personally, 1) and 3) don't hold a high premium. But 2) turns out to be huge for me. I never realized until jQuery how much my code tended towards operating on a set of nodes rather than a single node (if someone would have asked me I would have guessed the opposite tendency). 2) virtually eliminated all for loops from my code (or .forEach or however else I tended to abstract it), which was actually quite liberating. Now I notice it's the rare occasion where my code must operate on some single element.
Speed of development and turnaround of code.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned in the other answers is that, eventually, someone else is going to have to maintain your code. If it's all custom, they'll have a rougher time of it than if a more standard library is used. If that's not of any concern to you, and you don't think you're likely to need any of the really slick jQuery modules, then keep on with what you're doing.
For me, there are several benefits, like speed of development, etc.
But at the end of the day, it boils down to one thing:
It removes a HUGE amount of the cross-browser BS that can eat up so much time and resources, so I don't have to deal with it
jQuery allows you to write shorter, cleaner code that's easy to understand. Many people use it, so there are many plugins that work along with it, minimizing bloat. The same may not be true of your own personal library.
If you know JavaScript really well you should also know that jQuery's syntax isn't different from JavaScript's syntax.
What you might be referring to is the chaining idiom (used everywhere in jQuery) which seems to make things look very different from other sort of code. Well there's a reason for that, it's because it bonds really well with how the DOM works.
If you truly know JavaScript, you'll be at running speed with jQuery in under a week's time. If you don't already know your way around JavaScript, adding a layer on top might do more harm than good. But that's just like anything else!
You're going to be writing better looking and easier to understand JavaScript at a faster pace and only once — not once per browser. Downside? You're going to tack on another ~50KB of JavaScript. That's what caching is for :)
Jquery is javaScript in the hand of the designer.
It is as easy as writing CSS styles on an element.
Also Jquery is the easiest to understand, write maintain, add plugins.
I was working on a gallery program for a client (which is now exhibiting inexplicable behavior in IE6 and 7 - surprise, surprise - but I found that when I switched from bare-metal Javascript to jQuery a lot of the work got much easier. To me, it makes available the CSS view of the DOM while writing Javascript - which makes traversal and manipulation much more intuitive. Also, the cross-browser compatibility and brevity is wonderful.
It doesn't really matter if jQuery is great or awful. It's the powerhouse JS library now, used on a huge number of pages, and future browsers will have to accommodate it or be seen as themselves buggy.
What I don't like about jQuery: I'm not that thrilled about how it ignores mobile phone browsers in its test suites. It gets pulled in on all kinds of pages on mobile phones, and yet it makes no effort to ensure it works well on them.
jQuery degrades gracefully and it's one of the fastest (not THE fastest anymore though):
http://mootools.net/slickspeed/
There are many other frameworks out there, and whichever you choose, you probably wouldn't go wrong, but having uses jQuery myself, I'd definitely recommend it.
:)
I have extensively used Prototype before and it helped us add considerable interactivity to our web applications. However we are looking at making the move to use jQuery in order to standardize on something better supported in Visual Studio.
I understand that we can use the jQuery.noConflict to run it alongside Prototype, but we would like to avoid having users need to download both libraries to use our website.
So, is there a good resource that can help us move old scripts from Prototype to jQuery?
I can't really help you too much with your question, other than to say that I haven't heard of any such tool, and that I'd be really surprised if one actually existed.
While I think jQuery is a great library, and that you're right to be wanting to only use one library, just remember that the cost of you changing over all your scripts is going to be many many hours of work. The cost of your users downloading an extra 30kb of scripts is going to be roughly 0.3 seconds. Perhaps try to slowly phase out Prototype and only refactor your existing pages when a) you have to, or b) if you've got nothing better to do.
Falkayn,
There is no automated process available for conversion of JavaScipt code written against one JS library to another one. Moreover there cannot be one. Different libraries implement different proramming models as well as they arrange their APIs in different manner.
So, before you have found a solution to your problem now ask yourself a question: Am I going to convert my jQuery code once another even "cooler" "X-type" JavaScript library became available?
If your answer is no, take your time and convert the code manually no mater how long will it take. In case you answer "yes" don't convert the code at all.
So it goes.
Thanks guys for your input. I was looking for more of a syntax comparison than anything automated, but nickf makes a good point in that the real cost need not be too great. We only used Prototype on a few pages that really needed a high level of interactivity, so as long as mind out Ps and Qs it should not hurt to use jQuery everywhere else.