

VanillaJS Framework Announced - zackify
http://vanilla-js.com/

======
taypo
How is this a fair 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 <script
src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<script> $('#thing').fadeOut(); </script>

------
josefdlange
It took me about five minutes to realize how dumb I was and that this was
literally Vanilla JS.

~~~
iamlolz
Yep, it had me scratching my head.

------
smt88
I love this so much. I'd give it a million upvotes if I could.

~~~
icedchai
You love extra typing for no reason? I see the point but jQuery is still much
more concise.

~~~
smt88
Typing is pretty minimal when you use a good IDE with autocomplete. I never
type the word "document" \-- just "d" and then enter. (Note that vanilla JS
has great autocomplete support out-of-the-box in many IDEs.)

The vast majority of development time is spent dealing with people, reading
code, learning, or maintaining code. Typing is a very small part of it, and I
remember seeing a study recently that confirmed it.

If you hate typing that much, just write simple wrappers around vanilla JS,
e.g. $.el = function (id) { return document.getElementById(id) };

What's more, when you're writing a complex web app using JS libraries, all of
those milliseconds you lose in performance are going to add up (especially on
mobile!)

~~~
icedchai
Those "simple wrappers" are already provided to me by using jquery, etc. Why
would I waste my time writing my own? (I realize a lot more is also provided.)

The getElementById is really the most simplistic example and actually does not
bother me. Though just look at all the cruft required to make a AJAX call with
"vanilla" JS. It's gross. Use a well known, standard library and abstract it
all away.

------
robinricard
Previous HN thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4435547](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4435547)

