41–50 of 214 posts
I share the opinions of others in this thread that the current name is an unlucky one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're mixing metaphors there! It might be lightweight but it's still a flavour. It's still not part of the common browser API, so yes it's easy to add, but no, it's not vanilla.
> it's still a flavour. > it's not vanilla. Hate to interrupt, but vanilla is a flavor. And it's a pretty good one, dammit!
"Vanilla JavaScript" implies "without anything added".
What does “unopinionated Reactive UI framework” even mean?
I really don't want to be that guy, but... Vanilla JavaScript already exists as a popular term for JavaScript without any framework. No jQuery, no React - just JavaScript. Calling a library VanJS (as short for "Vanilla JavaScript") is just going to cause confusion. The repo's own description uses the phrase vanilla JavaScript in this way, and even mixes both meanings within a single sentence. If the author likes the…
So now we have a framework that doesn't want to be a framework? They might call it "VoidJS" instead, as in void = vacuum = so lightweight it's almost as if there's nothing there?
And now I want to create a library/framework/whatever called NaN.js...
a({href: "https://vanjs.org/"}, "VanJS")
a("VanJS").href("https://vanjs.org/")
a("About us", ".big.red").href("/about.html").target("_blank")That's cool but my favorite vanilla js framework by far is vapor.js. https://github.com/madrobby/vapor.js
- https://redom.js.org 2kB
- https://nanojsx.io 1kB
Until i run into a big bottleneck in react and cannot find a way to overcome it, i am not gonna switch from react to yet another new framework. Time is better allocated for more important things.