While I like to say it's "Not a framework" I figured this was the best place to mention it. I've made a new library of helper functions and method extensions that's lightweight, assists with class and DOM manipulation, and provides a few ECMA-Script polyfills for usefull string and array methods that not all browsers support yet.


Why do I call it a "library" and "not a framework"? Because to me 'framework' now has a negative connotation associated with it. They are slow, bloated, and many of them by themselves are larger than my ideal target for a page template (not counting content) in terms of HTML + CSS + Scripts + Images -- hellfire and brimstone some of them gzip compressed are larger than entire PAGES on sites I build WITH CONTENT. (assuming you don't count the fat bloated social media garbage).

To be fair, I say the same thing about nitwit nudnik nonsense like HTML/CSS frameworks like bootstrap, and broken thinking like LESS, SASS and OOCSS which defeat the point of even USING HTML/CSS in the first place!

More so though, 'frameworks' seem to be built on the idea of doing things for you in JavaScript, even if it's not JavaScript's job... This is even more true with CSS3 on the table now making things like jquery's .fadein or .slidein methods seem not just dated, but slow, jerky, wasteful and unreliable.

A library on the other hand just gives you tools to do things yourself properly. It doesn't try to 'change how the language works' or 'stop you from learning the language in the first place' -- something libraries, like my favorite whipping-boy jQuery -- excels at.

Generally speaking a LOT of what people do using jQuery is "gee ain't it neat" bull that to be brutally frank falls into three categories:

1) could be coded smaller and more efficient in vanilla js. Sounds crazy, but it's often true.

2) is CSS' job... Particularly with CSS3 now what I'd call "real world deployable" -- much like the rest of CSS3 if someone using an old copy of IE doesn't get a animation, rounded corners, and drop shadows, but the page is still FUNCTIONAL enough for them to use -- who gives a flying purple fish?

3) Has no business on a website in the first place. In this category we have scripting being used to make sure forms are useless scripting off and buggy/annoying scripting on, over-reliance on client-side processing resulting in opening security holes when people forget to re-check values server-side (since ALL user input is suspect), little if anything resembling graceful degradation, and massive bandwidth wasting "gee ain't it neat" animated nonsense that does nothing to do what's ACTUALLY important on a website, DELIVERING CONTENT.

so... trying to provide a better, leaner, more practical alternative. I might be charging at windmills full tilt, but after several years of seeing site after site basically turned into useless trash thanks to bloated pointless garbage made with jQuery, prototype, YUI, and their ilk -- I have to at least try.