
Ext Core 3.0 vs jQuery, a comparison - jrnkntl
http://www.sporcic.org/2009/04/ext-core/
======
halo
Having a quick read of the documentation, Ext Core 3.0 is very similar to
jQuery, except no-one uses it, its syntax is uglier (i.e. the distinction
between Ext.get vs Ext.fly is problematic, the weird inclusion and naming of
Ext.radioClass for something you can do in 2 lines of code), it adds a
hodgepodge of dubious "object oriented" features, and randomly extends a few
built-in objects via prototypes (or 'JavaScript Augmentation') something which
is generally considered a bad idea.

The idea that people should choose this above jQuery because one day they may
shell out the money on a proprietary JavaScript library is crazy, especially
as so few people on the web are doing RIA stuff to begin with. There's simply
no reason to use it unless you're relying on ExtJS anyway, especially as most
web developers already knows and uses the simple jQuery syntax.

~~~
amix
I have looked the implementation* of Ext.fly and I still don't understand why
it's smart or faster than using document.getElementById. Somebody care to
explain?

* <http://pastie.org/437448>

~~~
TommyM
Ext.fly uses the Flyweight pattern, which basically means that instead of
creating a new instance of Ext.Element to wrap around the DOM element, it uses
one global instance of Ext.Element and just simple replaces the internal
pointer to the DOM element within that instance. This makes it faster because
it can skip constructor and additional logic to create the Ext.Element
instance, and smart because it doesnt need additional memory for a new
instance. To read more about the Flyweight pattern, you can read here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyweight_pattern>

------
geuis
I'm a big fan if jQuery and haven't used Ext. However this post does nothing
to convince me to switch. It really seems all of the authors points boil down
to "I think they're both tied, but Ext is better because I like it."

jQuery makes writing javascript much simpler. By this, I mean that it let's me
write code to do what I want and not to get bogged down in the pecular aspects
of the framework language. I have recently tried YUI and completely hated it
for this reason. No consistency or simplicity to the framework. Doesn't help
me build products faster.

~~~
intranation
Agreed. Most of the "points" were either personal taste, or jQuery won but it
was called a tie because of "negligible difference" (for example - the fact
that jQuery core is 30% smaller than ExtJS, but it's "only 19Kb").

Or ExtJS's ostensibly "more powerful DOM manipulators", which actually fail to
be demonstrated in the article.

Very poor article.

~~~
TimSporcic
So sorry for having a personal opinion on my personal blog :-) 19K has never
mattered to me compared to all the rest of the stuff that ends up getting
pulled down. Since both are base libraries, I have always ended up including
more. I explicitly kept this comparison to their overlap. I'll be doing
another post covering the areas where Ext Core excels. Both libraries are very
good and you can't go wrong with either, but I do prefer Ext Core.

------
boundlessdreamz
No one should be using Ext. Ext has had a very shady history regarding
licenses (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExtJS#License_History>) and they have
tried to stop developers from using their previous LGPL code citing some
spurious interpretation of license.

Bottom line is, use jQuery or dojo or prototype if you want to avoid
headaches.

The company behind Ext wants to have the cake and eat it too. They want people
to adopt the code (hence the GPL) but they want people to pay for it too.

~~~
TommyM
I don't see what Ext Core - which is released under the MIT license! - has to
do with the GPL license of the Ext JS library.

Nobody has to pay for using Ext Core, so the only valid reason for not
choosing it is a dislike for its syntax, internal workings or any other
technical reason.

~~~
halo
It's the same reason people are suspicious when Microsoft associates itself
with open-source software. Past actions make people suspicious as to whether
they can rely on them for support in the future, especially when it comes to
something like frameworks where large code-bases rely on its continued
existence and the vendor not pulling the plug, and kill any ill-will in the
community.

Once bitten, twice shy.

------
bitdiddle
"cancerous GPL" ? I used to have more tolerance for this but when I hit this
phrase I stopped reading. It's amazing how bias works. When you deliberately
use a phrase designed to insult people their natural biases kick right in. So
the commenter's view that "except no-one uses it, its syntax is uglier"
immediately is accepted as truth. I guess freedom is cancerous, once one
person has it everyone wants it.

~~~
hs
except that freedom with strings attached is not freedom

~~~
bitdiddle
freedom is never free

------
chairface
I am flabbergasted that this guy gives the Ext documentation a better grade
than jQuery's. I have to use both at work, and I can always find what I need
very quickly with jQuery, but with Ext I end up hunting, sometimes for hours.
Honestly, for someone just getting into Ext development and not want to use
one of the pre-fab RIA stuff, the documentation is among the crappiest I have
ever seen, for all its volume.

------
Chris_Westbrook
I am interested in the prospect/rumor of Ext being acquired by a company like
Adobe.

Ref Adobe rumor: <http://www.sporcic.org/2009/04/ext-core/>

On the other major topics above...

If you want an enterprise level Javascript framework, then ExtJS is your
answer. When major web-app companies like SalesForce use ExtJS for core
functionality, you might turn and ask yourself are YOU missing out on
something because you are stuck in the past looking at licensing?

Respect the past but, quit complaining and get out their and DO. Think about
the time an energy you wasted trying to remind everyone of some indirect pain
you experience while a start-up company discovered their positioning within a
tough market.

I for one will continue to use ExtJS and Ext Core for my clients commercial
applications because I want a company I can rely on and not bet my customers
success on some 3rd party plug-in developer to always be their to upgrade or
update there jQuery Form or LiveGrid plugin.

I do want to note quickly that I use jQuery on my front-end websites and it is
a great core library for websites. It just can't make the jump from web to web
application.

------
thomaspaine
It should be ExtJS, not Ext 3. I don't know how a linux filesystem can battle
jQuery.

~~~
jrnkntl
Changed it to Ext Core 3.0, Ext JS is the foundation.

------
ideazunlimited
EXT-JS is the shame of software development and ethics. I doubt anyone will
have the guts to use EXT-JS libraries as the licenses keep changing on whims.
It's not just cancerous but HIV+ve as well.

~~~
TommyM
So your definition of hard-working, talented developers trying to create
quality products, while trying to be able to keep doing this by selling a
license for commercial projects not wanting to use the GPL license (note that
GPL is as open-source as code can get) is "the shame of software development
and ethics". I was about to write a detailed reply, but after rereading your
comment a couple of times, I think there is just no point in arguing with
someone who obviously doesnt know what he is talking about, and is obviously
meaning to offend others by making untrue and hurtful statements.

Besides that, The Ext Core library is released under the permissive MIT
license, and I'm confident in saying that that won't change in the future.

~~~
bobbyi
Ext burned a lot of people with their license shenanigans in the past.

It won't soon be forgotten. I will never touch a piece of code that comes out
of that project again if I can avoid it.

Being "talented developers" is not an excuse for being untrustworthy.

~~~
henryp
History shows that the license change was an attempt to find a business model.
(they already had commercial licenses with the lgpl - maybe no one was
buying?) If you interpret this as being untrustworthy, then so be it. These
guys are doing amazing work and to question their ethics, when you obviously
don't know them, shows a bit of immaturity on your part.

------
jusob
I'm suprised to see all the negativity about ExtJS. There is one aerea where
ExtJS is much better than JQuery: visual widgets. JQuery UI lags far behing
ExtJS. ExtJS offers a large array of widgets, with a consistent look.

It should be mentionned that you can replace the ExtJS base library with
JQuery, so you get the nice ExtJS UI widgets + the JQuery DOM interaction.

For websites, I use JQuery. But if I build a web application that looks like a
desktop application, ExtJS is much better at it.

------
jerith
It seems funny that no one bothers to mention that most of Ext's "so called"
core is actually YUI. They did some find and replaces and added some wrapper
code, but it's all still based heavily on YUI.

Why use this license mess, when I can use YUI/jQuery and know where they
stand?

------
hs
looks like i have to type more if i switch to ext; hence, no

