Ajax - Library or Plain Javascript

Question

I've been doing a lot of reading about AJAX, and wanted to know which is the better way to approach things: by using a library such as jQuery using their built-in methods or creating JavaScript without a library for AJAX?

Answer 1

Why create a library when plenty already exists? If you create a library it is going to take time and effort and you'll end up going through the same hurdles others already have. And unless your company is trying to sell an Ajax library then stay away from writting your own plumbing code.

I am currently using both JQuery and Microsoft's Ajax in my site and have found that they are both feature complete with plenty of options of different ways you can set up the communication.

Answer 2

why wouldn't you use library if it meets your needs. you're using .net framework, or java JRE, or php built-in functions...

you can create your own javascript for the purpose of learning, or to do something libraries don't offer. but for regular development, you are much quicker with library and you get cross-browser compatible JS without having to code cross-browser support manually, it's already built-in into the library

Answer 3

Ajax has a lot of quirks when working with the XMLHttpRequest Object. When you start to work with it, you will not see it, but when it is out in a production environment, it will bite you in the butt. Browsers, browser version, user settings, the type of server, type of request, and much more can affect what needs to be coded. Libraries tend to solve most of the problems, but they all are not perfect.

I always tell people it is great to work with a tutorial to see how the XMLHttpRequest works. After you have learned how to do it naked, work with a library that fits your needs.

Eric Pascarello

Answer 4

Eric,

Just the answer I was looking for. Thank you. That makes sense to me!

Answer 5

If you ask this question on comp.lang.javascript you'll get lots of different answers, many of which disdain the commonly-used libraries (one quote sometimes taken slightly out of context is Richard Cornford's post on c.l.js in 2007: "Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.")

The argument for libraries is they abstract away most of the differences between browsers and allow for cross-browser scripting. The argument against libraries is that they are bloated code with quirks of their own, so you'd have to learn just as much to use them well as you would to use cross-browser techniques in raw javascript. If you are writing lots of Javascript that you're going to reuse in multiple places, and you're trying to make websites that load quickly and use a minimum of excess bandwidth (e.g. if you have pay-per-use webhosting like via Amazon S3 or nearlyfreespeech.net), then it's probably worth stripping whatever you're going to use out of a good library, tweaking it, and using that.

I was all psyched about Prototype for a while, but then decided I just need a few simple building blocks. I tend to use Doug Crockford's simple JSON library, and then some of Fork Javascript's minimalist libraries as needed (primarily FORK.Ajax), and do the rest myself from scratch or reusing routines from an earlier project that I've honed to something that works well for me.