Your choice of cross-browser javascript GUI

Question

UPDATE - A comprehensive comparison, updated as of February 2015, can be found here:

Alternatives to Ext JS

---

2008 question:

There are a number of great and not so-great Javascript GUI frameworks out there. I've looked at some (only superficially). And I can't make my mind about any of them

Scroll to the end of this question to see what others say

• Ext.js The obvious choice by many since it's one of the most known frameworks.
  Advantages: Looks awesome, large community, lots of extensions/plugins, GPL'ed
  Disadvanatges: Inability to use third-party extensions with commercial license (and some of those extensions have killer features)

• Backbase Relatively less known. A curious mix of XML and Javascript that is reminiscent of XUL. However, it's already cross-browser
  Advantages: Looks good, very extensible, allows easy incorporation of some really neat stuff
  Disadvantages: Pricing is steep and CPU-bound (though free to use on up to 2 CPUs), forums are slow to respond (though commercial support is supposedly fast)

• qooxdoo Also very popular.
  Advantages: Please, fill in
  Disadvantages: Code is slighly messy (based on hearsay)

• YUI Fill in description
  Advantages: Well organized code Disadvantages: Many widgets still in beta

• Dojo Fill in description
  Advantages: Incremental loading of classes
  Disadvantages: MIght feel bloated

• jQuery UI
  Advantages: Widgets not dependent on each other
  Disadvantages: In an early stage of development, very few widgets
  Possible tendency towards wider acception: jQuery to be shipped with ASP.NET MVC

---

What say you? What do you use and why? What would you rather use and why? In any kind of project

---

To be updated with your input...

See this excellent comment from Sergey Ilinsky which explains very nicely which framework you should choose when you want to just pimp up your page, build an application with a rich frontend (with several choices, no less)

An interesting comment in another thread compares jQuery, Dojo, Prototype, Mootools, Sproutcore and Cappuccino (the question was removed).

Solution 1

When considering a JavaScript library/framework for usage you should first define on your goals. I used to separate all JavaScript libraries/frameworks into three categories by their purpose and architecture:

1. I want to pimp up my page with some really "cool" features. Go for JavaScript library.

   • jQuery
   • ZenoUI
   • old: Prototype, Mootools

2. I want to build an application with a rich front-end. I like defining UI with JavaScript and I do not mind much using custom APIs of these libraries for coding my application logic. Go for JavaScript post-library/pre-framework.

   • extjs
   • kendo
   • DHTMLX
   • Dojo
   • YUI
   • Qooxdoo
   • jQuery UI
   • Bindows - generates the exact look of Windows
   • Spry (raw, suffers severely of memory leaks)

3. I want to build an application with a rich front-end. I like defining UI in XML and I would like to code my application logic against standard APIs and make use of other developer-facing standard-based technologies. Go for JavaScript framework.

   • Sproutcore
   • Backbase
   • Ample SDK

For a more detailed comparison, see the alternatives to ExtJS.

Solution 2

On the contrary I find qooxdoo syntax and code organization very clear. It is much like swing or gtk. I have tried Dojo as well, without much success. My no.1 choice for RIAs is qooxdoo. It is rich, coder-friendly, free and well documented.

My choice for any other (browser based) JavaScript work is jQuery. Although other libraries (prototype, mochikit etc) are all useful, jQuery is the hype now. Having an active (and big) community counts.

Solution 3

A lot of people on StackOverflow use jQuery, so answers will likely be biased in that direction. Additionally, jQuery will ship with ASP.Net MVC, making it the natural choice for developers using the Microsoft platform.

Solution 4

The YUI code is well organized, well commented and easy to read. As with most of these projects, one tends to feel that the engineers working on them have too much time on their hands.

In a big project, simple, readable code that is flat and easy to adapt is much more powerful than gee whizbang widgets. I can figure out the candy for myself as needed. Debugging JS is hard enough without having to wade through reams of clever code.

Solution 5

Dojo pros are IMO the following: 1. Provides a simple DOM query functionality, like jQuery, ex:

dojo.query(".disableAble").style("backgroundColor","gray");

2. Have really smart loader, which can pull in all classes at once, incrementally or at your own choosing. Also correlates with the build system where you pick your menu and compress, inline, et.c.

3. In my opinion the most important thing; A full client-side hierarchical widget system that is super-easy to extend, with support for DTL client side templates. Forces you to modularize your code and utilizes Dojo's own build and load system for custom widgets as well.

4. Almost all things that people write for Dojo become part of the 'official' build, under the dojox (experimental) folder. Many other toolkits have a lot of variants of the same widget making it hard for users to choose the right one.

Cheers, PS http://unclescript.blogspot.com

View more solutions

Comments

[Joel Coehoorn]

Note that I think this question was asked previously, but I can't find the link now and I'm going to recommend to other users that we keep this version open, since it has a much clearer presentation of the issue.

[Joel Coehoorn]

Also, to the OP: this should probably be a community wiki question.

[Pistos]

FWIW, I wanted to point out that my experience with ExtJS has been nothing but negative. Documentation had too many holes, and when you do things that are not really close to the examples, it is frustrating. It also doesn't play nice when you are using another JS library (legacy code) also.

[Mamut]

The question was about an alternative to Ext.js, [1][1] [1]: stackoverflow.com/questions/200284/…

[Harshit Shah]

This question has been asked multiple times. I agree it's nicely presented, but for the love of dog, can't we just have this info in 1 place???

[jamiebarrow]

It would be interesting to see what people think now, almost 3 years after the original posting, my opinion is that jQuery and jQuery UI are the most widely known (whether they are the best is another matter).

[Mamut]

Indeed. I don't know if it would be wise to start another post like this one :)

[matt b]

Agreed! But I wasn't the one that chose to use it, it was already in place :)

[Sergey Ilinsky]

I am pretty much purist, so please do not feel offended if this high-level split does not reflect your vision.

[schonarth]

Excellent point! I have mostly used MooTools (and really like it) and thought it to be on the 2nd category. Now I am even more likely to take a look on others, likely JQuery, which has been in the spotlights lately..

[Mamut]

Excellent, I'll put a link to your comment in the question!

[Harshit Shah]

The reason a lot of people on SO use jQuery is that... a lot of people use jQuery!

[Joel Coehoorn]

That's right. It's called 'developer traction', and it is important. It speaks to whether or not the product will continue to get support in the long term and whether or not you'll be able to find help for that product via Google or places like StackOverflow.

[Massimo]

I agree, and suggest you to check BBC Glow. Other libraries praise for bells and whistles. Glow annoncement is about cross browser support. They wrote a clear statement about their goals, and there is also a browsers' support table: bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/technical/…

[Dan Dascalescu]

Rialto development ceased in 2012.