My problem with VanillaJS is that browser companies ship browsers with VanillaJS support already. This is a clear case of picking winners, regardless of VanillaJS's excellent benchmarks. Why should all these browsers ship with Vanilla? Why not Vue? Why not MooTools? Why not Moo.fx?
Not sure Vue falls in the same category, Vanilla lists "features" such as: "DOM (Traversal / Selectors), Prototype-based Object System, AJAX, Animations, Event System, Regular Expressions, Functions as first-class objects, Closures, Math Library, Array Library, String Library". Not "component-markup-to-JS transpilation" or SPA v-dom render loop
Like you said, VanillaJS isn't inherently faster than any of these frameworks, but the cost to the user (and the increased API surface) isn't worth that tiny improvement in code clarity.
I did not say that. VanillaJS is pretty much faster than all of those other frameworks. Can you point me to a library that has better benchmarks than VanillaJS?
Huh, I have enjoyed this site in the past, but I forgot about the code comparisons including script tags for non-Vanilla and not for Vanilla. That seems a bit misleading. I get the extra script tag for jQuery, but the <script> { content } </script> would still be necessary for vanilla..
I looked at the page and I think the documentation is a little lacking.
I only understand what VanillaJS is supposed to do by implication, by looking at the PlainJS sight and then extrapolating that this must be competition.
I found the documentation link on VanillaJS on the bottom of the page. It seems VanillaJS is a project of Mozilla, or adopted by them. Very nice for a browser maker to spend time documenting a library so thoroughly. I would say the docs are almost better than jQuery's docs.
On the other hand, I like jQuery more for the support community :)
