Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

VanJS (Vanilla JavaScript): smallest reactive UI framework

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 214 posts

Re: VanJS (Vanilla JavaScript): smallest reactive UI framework

#201

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

dheera wrote: post #190
dahwolf wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will up you. Using the word "vanilla" to refer to anything neutral, default, or basic is wrong. Vanilla is a sophisticated flavor, not to mention a precious and expensive ingredient. Most people have never consumed real vanilla in their lifetime.

Similarly, using the word "original" to describe plain potato chips is wrong. It's the most unoriginal flavor of the lot. Just call it "plain".

It's not similar. Unfortunately, "original" is one of the words with a couple of very close but different meaning. This one even goes first in the dictionary:

> Existing at the beginning of a particular period, process or activity.

The original meaning of the root "origin" comes from Latin: to rise -> beginning, source birth.

Re: VanJS (Vanilla JavaScript): smallest reactive UI framework

#202

Post by rawoke083600 »

ajd1988 wrote: post #138
aspyct wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, please be that guy. Or I'll do it. Vanilla Javascript refers indeed to "javascript without a framework". So creating a framework and calling it "vanilla javascript" is... wrong?

I understand the confusion, given the existing terms but it seems the intent behind the name 'VanJS' is to highlight the simplicity and 'bare-bones' nature of this new framework, aligning it with the 'vanilla' aspect. While it might lead to some confusion initially, with clear and transparent communication about what 'VanJS' offers, it could still work as a brand that distinguishes itself by simplicity - or pivot to…

>While it might lead

Might ?? Come now, be an adult and a thinking person ! Go down the hall find 10 js/frontend programmers. Ask them what do they think "Vanilla JS" might mean ?

Re: VanJS (Vanilla JavaScript): smallest reactive UI framework

#203

Post by joesb »

usrbinbash wrote: post #67
jitl wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s 93 lines, less than most CSS resets. Small enough to copy paste to the top of your index.html in a script tag. You can use it without NPM, webpack, a special compiler pass, or a template language. Seems pretty vanilla compared to the full fat, popular alternatives.

> Seems pretty vanilla No it doesn't, same as "automobile" doesn't seem pretty Saturn-5, despite the fact that both are moving under their own power. Terms have meaning, including meaning derived from communities by and large accepting that a certain term has a certain semantic meaning. And the accepted semantic meaning of "Vanilla Javascript" is "runs without a framework besides the browsers own API". If my code wor…

> If my code works out of the box in an unmodified browser, then it is Vanilla JS. If I have to load a framework for it to work, then it isn't, period.

Minor nitpick, third party library and framework does not modify your browser. They all still run on unmodified browsers.

Re: VanJS (Vanilla JavaScript): smallest reactive UI framework

#204

Post by scotty79 »

SquareWheel wrote: post #5

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…

It's very effective naming strategy. It's called VanJS not Vanilla JavaScript. But it's kinda hard to remember Van, or any letters really. By association of it's main quality which is small size/simplicity with common term such as vanilla JavaScript, suddenly VanJS becomes memorable.

Similarly vanilla js was named like that, after common term describing plain flavor of icecream. Which was weird to me, and I learned that as a non-native speaker only after I heard about vanilla js.

Re: VanJS (Vanilla JavaScript): smallest reactive UI framework

#205

Post by briantakita »

meigwilym wrote: post #80
amelius wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suggestion: call it Bourbon JS. Wikipedia: > The majority of the world's vanilla is the V. planifolia species, more commonly known as Bourbon vanilla.

Already taken. I know it's not JS but it's front end tooling. https://www.bourbon.io/

It's a zombie project as not many people use sass, let alone a heavy sass library.

bourbon.js it is?

Re: VanJS (Vanilla JavaScript): smallest reactive UI framework

#206

Post by schwartzworld »

elgenie wrote: post #187
WorldMaker wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The relationship between Bourbon (spirit), primarily distilled and aged in Kentucky, and Bourbon (vanilla plant), primarily grown in Madagascar is one of fascinating cross-convergence of "things rich French speakers loved", plus the coincident accident of Bourbon, Kentucky being a shipping port (and Oak as an aging vessel high in imparting vanillins). Both are a reminder that vanilla as a flavor was long a spice for…

The etymology is legit and comes from ice cream, for which vanilla is considered the default or “plain” flavoring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_vanilla Vanilla historically being fancy but then becoming an attainable and cheap additive is probably somewhat responsible for it becoming the default ice cream flavor, and thus flipping the idiomatic meaning.

Lots of dessert / ice cream recipes use vanilla as an ingredient regardless of what the final flavor is meant to be. This also leads to the vanilla === plain misconception, imo.

Re: VanJS (Vanilla JavaScript): smallest reactive UI framework

#208

Post by graftak »

toastercat wrote: post #115
onion2k wrote: post #14

The "Hello World" example is a really good example of why React, Vue, etc are better than something more minimal like this library if you're optimizing for speed. The page will show nothing until the script runs, which requires downloading the VanJS lib and the script itself. You could inline them into the page, but that gets seriously messy at scale. A modern React app that's using some serverside rendering for the…

You are comparing apples to oranges. The author could probably couple their library with https://vite-plugin-ssr.com/ and have something comparable within a day. The reality is most running React apps today are still traditional SPAs, and chances are likely the same apps can be rewritten with VanJS (or any other SPA framework) and the users would not notice a difference.

They would notice because vanjs trashes the entire DOM at the root of every state update so users will lose focus, animations will interrupt, and big perf hit layout reflows will occur.

Re: VanJS (Vanilla JavaScript): smallest reactive UI framework

#209

Post by ra1231963 »

jhp123 wrote: post #152
ra1231963 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a bit confused why they made it in the first place given the dozens of similar ultra minimal spartan frameworks to choose from that nobody uses (every other comment here is plugging one).

This library actually has some pretty unique ideas, like the use of Proxy objects which is not commonplace in javascript frameworks. Even if it didn't, sometimes it's just nice to build your own take on something.

Proxy objects are absolutely common in js state management frameworks.

And yes it’s nice to build something on your own, but this project is clearly aiming to convince other people to use it in their projects.

Re: VanJS (Vanilla JavaScript): smallest reactive UI framework

#210

Post by not_your_vase »

duxup wrote: post #178
tracker1 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Reality is that people will disagree with other people. And pretending that an opinion has no value because it might upset someone or apply to a generalization or group that isn't intended to mean "all of Group X" so much as "many/most of Group X, from my experience" as a disclosure doesn't mean that the rest of the statement, that could be impersonal or even offensive to some has no value.

If the only person being discussed is the author of the library, and you don’t know them…. what relevance is someone’s experience with other people who share a trait? The idea of “pretending” here is interesting, I find the whole “ I don't want to judge him” to be its own form of dishonesty….

I am happy to see that the guy has rejected the idea of renaming the project. I am judging him: he is just as arrogant as any other Googlers. I'm sorry I didn't wanted to judge him, or that I even implied it. He deserved all the judgement. Long live the new definition of Vanilla JavaScript!
Post reply on HN