Ask HN: What do you think about developing a web front with Vanilla JavaScript?

What do you think about developing a web front-end with Vanilla JavaScript to minimize performance issues?

I believe I have reached a certain level of success. The canvas seems to have excellent performance. Could you take a look at the ongoing test and provide feedback?

https://alpha.breathingworld.com/

Show context

satvikpendem ◴[22 Oct 24 10:39 UTC] No.41912981[source]▶

>>41910736 (OP) #

I think at the very least, TypeScript should be used.

replies(1): >>41913571 #

Farer ◴[22 Oct 24 12:30 UTC] No.41913571[source]▶

>>41912981 #

Of course, type safety is great, I understand that. But I want to know the detailed reason why. Why do you think it's so important?

replies(1): >>41913644 #

solardev ◴[22 Oct 24 12:41 UTC] No.41913644[source]▶

>>41913571 #

It's a developer experience thing. Moves many bugs from runtime to coding time, letting you catch them preemptively and fix them right in the IDE without going through build cycles or hot reloads. You instantly know if something will break because of mismatched types.

Probably doesn't matter much for performance. It all gets stripped away during build anyway.

replies(1): >>41913858 #

Farer ◴[22 Oct 24 13:09 UTC] No.41913858[source]▶

>>41913644 #

I've worked with various frameworks and libraries in the past, like Prototype, jQuery, AngularJS, React, and Next.js, but I think I've ultimately come to trust Vanilla JavaScript the most. Compared to developing with Vanilla, I noticed that using these tools often results in unnecessary code in the final product.

As a side note, I was never really fond of jQuery, even when it first came out, and it ended up becoming almost obsolete. Lately, I'm also not entirely happy with the direction React and Next.js are heading. It could just be because I've grown so accustomed to Vanilla JavaScript.

replies(2): >>41914832 #>>41914852 #

satvikpendem ◴[22 Oct 24 14:45 UTC] No.41914832{3}[source]▶

>>41913858 #

Those frameworks are unrelated to TypeScript, as you can use TypeScript as a preprocessor for vanilla JS DOM operations.

replies(1): >>41915189 #

1. Farer ◴[22 Oct 24 15:22 UTC] No.41915189{4}[source]▶

>>41914832 #

Okay. I think what I said might cause some misunderstandings. As I mentioned in another comment above, it seems to be because I don't like adding builds, compiles, issues, etc. that are not pure JavaScript. I also like TypeScript. It ensures stable development, right? There probably isn't anyone around you developing with vanilla JavaScript, is there?

replies(1): >>41918478 #

2. satvikpendem ◴[22 Oct 24 20:40 UTC] No.41918478[source]▶

>>41915189 (TP) #

Why would there be? Everyone I know has migrated to TypeScript.

replies(2): >>41920749 #>>41920845 #

3. Farer ◴[23 Oct 24 01:32 UTC] No.41920749[source]▶

>>41918478 #

Not a single exception? :)

replies(1): >>41948170 #

4. Farer ◴[23 Oct 24 01:45 UTC] No.41920845[source]▶

>>41918478 #

And are you using React and Next.js these days?