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?
Vanilla Javascript refers indeed to "javascript without a framework". So creating a framework and calling it "vanilla javascript" is... wrong?
Also has the smallest footprint:
0 bytes uncompressed, 25 bytes gzipped!
Compression Considered Harmful
Vanilla is a sophisticated flavor, not to mention a precious and expensive ingredient. Most people have never consumed real vanilla in their lifetime.
> 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.
What exactly is the "vanilla extract, vanilla beans" in Ben & Jerry's ice cream then?
Supposedly Haagen-Dazs ice cream is made from "5 simple ingredients": cream, milk, eggs, sugar, and Madagascar (sic) vanilla (which is "real" vanilla I assume?)
And what about the vanilla extract which I have on my shelf, whose ingredients are "vanilla bean extractions in 35% alcohol?"
Have we all fallen victim to a diabolical vanilla conspiracy?
> The majority of the world's vanilla is the V. planifolia species, more commonly known as Bourbon vanilla.
Also, yes, bourbon (spirit) is a good accompaniment to late nights in JavaScript.
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.
bourbon.js it is?
https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/Fall2012/entries/liar-pa...
Does it seem vanilla compared to vanilla? Haha..
It's still not part of the common browser API, so yes it's easy to add, but no, it's not vanilla.
> it's not vanilla.
Hate to interrupt, but vanilla is a flavor. And it's a pretty good one, dammit!
"Vanilla JavaScript" implies "without anything added".
It's 3KB of barely documented code.
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 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. And it matters exactly nothing whether the framework in question has 900,000 or 9 lines of code.
Trying to make Vanilla JS a strict definition seems pointless to me in the first place.
I think we don't have to argue about the distinction between the library code and the application code. It doesn't matter how the library is loaded. You can get it from a CDN at runtime, load it from a scriptbundle, copypaste it into a <script> tag, it doesn't matter.
It's still library code that the rest of the application depends on. As soon as that is the case, it's no longer what the JS community by and large calls "Vanilla JS".
This is Vanilla JS:
fetch('/readme.txt')
.then(response => response.text())
.then(data => console.log(data))
.catch(error => console.log(error))
awesomeLib().goesBrrrrr()
Being able to name things, and having clarity in a community about what names denote, is anything but pointless.
Minor nitpick, third party library and framework does not modify your browser. They all still run on unmodified browsers.
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 Van rentals
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 ?