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

Answer 1

I've been asking myself this very same question for a while now, by means of just trying to wrap my head around the argument. And with ever discussion I read, the overwhelming response has been "More widely adopted - therefore better".

I am one who uses both extensively. JQuery at work (adopted because it was "more widely adopted") and Mootools on personal projects. As a result, I constantly find myself feeling crippled when using JQuery; Be it with JSON support, element creation, event handling... and so on. At work, I find myself writing chains 75 events long... and I feel dirty as a result.

My main overall beef with JQuery though, is that there's a lack of consistency or practice where plug-ins and 3rd party developers are concerned. The anecdotal "More plug-ins are available" really doesn't help me when there's no consistency between the plug-ins, structurally or otherwise. It took me several weeks to learn the "accepted" plug-in model, and even then, I've adapted my own pragmatic style into it, as I find error and inefficiency within the current structures. It can be said that it's a 'Pro' that anyone can jump in and start JQuerying it up. However, I am more inclined to call that a 'Con', in that you will see 30 different ways to accomplish something, and it's difficult to pin an accepted standard.

So what does it mean to "Know JQuery", Does it mean you know how to rock a little .hide().show().fadeIn().fadeOut()?

When I have to get gangster on my JS at work, I miss me some Mootools. I mean no Native JSON support? C'mon......

In response to the "Widely adopted" response, we all know OSCommerce is the most "Widely Adopted" shopping cart, and we all know what a pile of shit that is. I'm in no way comparing JQuery to OSCommerce. I'm simply pointing out the faulty of "Widely Adopted" response.

As for plugins, the App store for apple has what... 100k apps? 50,000 are fart apps. Sure there's a lot of plugins to JQuery, but the ratio of trash to worth-while is great.

Answer 2

jQuery gives you access to crisp and concise functional programming methods. Since the release of method chaining in (LINQ) in C# 3.0 this works very well for .NET programmers. So the flow from one language to the next is easy. To be able to query the DOM for an object, or a list of objects, works much better for us. It is jQuery's selection power first that makes it so attractive, then the extendability of it, and of course all the built in features that come with it are nice. Also, the community behind is wonderful in that I first look to see if someone else did something and then attempt to do it myself if a solution was not found. And last...but certainly not least...the fact that Microsoft is going to include in in Visual Studio 10 and support it is great. Moo Tools, Prototype, etc. just can't compete with all of the above.

Answer 3

I have to second a lot of the answers...great documentation and community support is crucial. I used to hate js programming and would avoid it like the plauge, but now I've completely embraced it because of jquery and the quick learning curve.

It's not always about who has the best technology!

Answer 4

YAGNI.

Yes, it's kinda out of place here, but that's the main reason jQuery has a larger base than MooTools. All those extras MooTools brings to the table are nice, but YAGNI.

It's not about best, it's about satisficing -- finding the adequate solution to the problem at hand. jQuery is easy to use, its primary aim is DOM manipulation. Since 95% of the people picking up javascript are doing so just to manipulate the DOM, there's no point in going through the longer MooTools learning curve. MooTools simply doesn't bring anything to the table for them that jQuery doesn't deliver with less effort.

MooTools demands more from you before you use it, jQuery lets you throw something together quickly. If you start writing large, heavy-duty js apps, you might run into some of the drawbacks of that approach, but again 95% of the folks writing js don't do that, so those things don't matter to them. They use a server-side language for the heavy-lifting and javascript for the DOM.

For that matter, they may not matter to your team, either. To take you through the lists, point by point (jQuery first):

Large community of supporters -- only slightly relevant to the project. Of more relevance to the team personally, because it speaks to life after you. If misfortune strikes (please, God, no) and your firm is gone, jQuery gets them more jobs than MooTools.

Plugin Repository -- very relevant, as it helps keep from reinventing the wheel.

Integration with Microsoft's ASP.NET and VisualStudio -- very relevant if you're a .NET shop. In fact, this alone should be the reason to switch if you do .NET.

Used by Microsoft, Google and others -- who cares?

Now for the MooTools list:

Object Oriented Framework with Classic OOP emulation for JS -- irrelevant, unless the nature of your projects makes that a plus. I don't know what you're building, but for web shops, this is only rarely relevant. Most web shops don't have enough code to make this a plus.

Extended native objects -- again irrelevant for most web shops

Higher consistency between browsers for native functions support. -- Relevant

More easy code reuse -- This conflicts a little with the jQuery advantage of a large repository. A large repository by itself speaks to reusing code. I suspect you're using a narrow definition of code reuse, here, that may not be relevant. I've reused a lot of the jQuery code I've built, as well as MT code.

Used by The World Wide Web Consortium, Palm and others. -- Irrelevant. The only relevance about who else is using what is if you're wanting a job there. There's more relevance in how many shops use it than in any particular shop using it.

There is no One True Way to approach javascript coding. Get your bias out of the way, and sit down with your team and get their bias out of the way as well. Talk turkey about the specific types of projects you're undertaking (and want to undertake) and the strengths of each library as applied to those cases. (How they might handle other cases doesn't matter, because those other cases don't exist.) You should arrive at a consensus from that.

(YAGNI = You Ain't Gonna Need It, if I need to explain it.)

Answer 5

Another reason: It's easier to sell jquery to management. Doing internal, asp.net based developement in a corporate environment the magic words are "it's supported by Visual Studio".

Answer 6

JS frameworks are so much alike, anyway. If you've been working with mootools for some time, stick to it. Knowing your framework is much more important than choosing one because of this or that.

In my opinion, mootools is better for advanced javascript programmers, while jquery is better for non-javascript programmers. That's what I think after reading both documentations, mind you, I didn't use any of them. jQuery lacks support for the core of javascript, function binding, object cloning, thread stacking, to name a few.