Why is jQuery so widely adopted versus other Javascript frameworks? [closed]

Answer 1

For one thing, that's not all it does. There are quite a few other features as well. For another, not everyone uses it. But I don't want to interrupt a good rant.

Answer 2

Mootools, does not function properly or does not function at all when using jquery prototype etc. Agreed there is absolutely no reason to use them simultaneously, but once in a while they do land up on the same page (ex. plugins, slideshows, widgets etc) and things stop working.

That in itself is unacceptable. So all props for jquery to not create unnecessary headaches!

Answer 3

I have not looked at MooTools in a while either. But here are my points for JQuery:

1. Consistent programming model (there is a JQuery way that works)
2. Excellent documentation. When I started JQuery had the best documentation out there.
3. Extensive 3rd party plugings
4. Microsoft support -- I am an asp.net developer, this helps ease clients minds. Plus it ships with my tools now.
5. Lots of getting started guides.
6. JQuery's website looks nicer than MooTool's web site. I'm sorry that matters, but it does. Remember, many of these tools need to appeal to designers as well as developers.

Answer 4

You kinda say it yourself:

Given that, it seems that MooTools does everything jQuery does and more (some things I cannot do in jQuery and I can in MooTools) but jQuery has a smaller learning curve.

Most of the extra stuff that MooTools does is stuff that we just don't need.

As you say yourself jQuery is easier to learn, which is actually more important for most people when choosing a framework.

Answer 5

The thing that made my experience with mootools a rather unpleasant one was the documentation and the stability of the API: I simply wasn't able to find a documentation that related to the mootools-Version in use. Won't be that much of a problem if the API defined was stable. But due to some functions that disappeared in the newer Version (a ChangeLog was found after hours of searching) a migration wasn't possible either. After that, mootools was out of the race for me.

Like many others, I don't want to introduce class-based OOP into simple user-interface manipulations. Thats what I use jQuery for: not so complicated user-interface stuff. When I have to build rich browser-side applications, I'd always switch to the big solutions (ExtJS, YUI, qooxdoo) that offer a variety of ready to use widgets.

Answer 6

I'm not a fan of imposing classical object orientation onto JavaScript. There are so many ways to do it that one JavaScript Programmer might be using Base2 for OO, while another uses Prototype or Moo or JS.Class or Joose. Resig deliberately decided not to add classes to jQuery, and that has encouraged people to find more native JavaScript ways to solve problems.

As a result, it's easier for me to read JavaScript other jQuery writers write, and to write jQuery code that's easier for others to read. I typically don't try to emulate class OOP in JavaScript. Instead, I create objects on the fly and pass them around, and I have lots of arrays of objects. It's so easy to understand that I've even found myself carrying that thinking over to OOP languages!

For all I know Moo may very well have caught up with jQuery or surpassed it. But I can't spend my time tracking the 6 or 7 great JavaScript libraries to see which horse is ahead.

I think it's was largely a matter of timing. When masses of programmers jumped into AJAX, jQuery was the hot new cool thing that solved their problems.

Other libraries have largely caught up. YUI, ExtJS, Dojo, Moo--they're all great. But I can't use them all.

I work hard enough trying to figure out the ramifications of the new features of the library I do use. For instance, jQuery added Live events as of 1.3. This actually let me cut code from many pages. Does Moo offer that now too, and how am I supposed to know it happened, if it did?

I'm sure Moo is awesome. I'd love to have the time to learn it. But have you looked at Dojo? I had to use it on one project and found that it had pulled in most of the great ideas from jQuery as well. And it has pubsub and good support for Comet.

I sympathize with you. But your programmers are talking sense. Learning jQuery is good for their careers, and there are more books, examples, and fellow programmers to ask for help if they use jQuery.

If you decide to go jQuery after all, think hard before deciding whether to tack on an OO library. There are some cool ones (like JS.Class or Joose), but taking that step means isolating yourself from how most JavaScript programmers code.