It’s 93 lines, less than most CSS resets. Small enough to copy paste to the top of your index.html in a script tag. You can use it without NPM, webpack, a special compiler pass, or a template language. Seems pretty vanilla compared to the full fat, popular alternatives.

Seems pretty vanilla compared to the full fat, popular alternatives? Absolutely!

Does it seem vanilla compared to vanilla? Haha..

You're mixing metaphors there! It might be lightweight but it's still a flavour.

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 still a flavour.

> it's not vanilla.

Hate to interrupt, but vanilla is a flavor. And it's a pretty good one, dammit!

Insofar as the discussion on the name "vanilla javascript" goes, this mixes metaphors.

"Vanilla JavaScript" implies "without anything added".

Minified React is 1 line, line length isn't exactly a great judge of how much it does.

It's 3KB of barely documented code.

That's nice but still: don't do that. VanillaJS is already a thing. Make your thing have a different name.

If I tell someone to "just use vanilla js" and they go googling and end up using VanJS instead.... that aint good.

> Seems pretty vanilla

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.

^^^100%

So loading an external library or framework isn't Vanilla JS, but if I copy/paste the VanJS source into a script tag, nothing gets loaded, there's no syntax magic, just some function calls, so that's Vanilla JS, right? If the latter isn't Vanilla JS by your definition, can I at least copy/paste something from stackoverflow?

Trying to make Vanilla JS a strict definition seems pointless to me in the first place.

> so that's Vanilla JS, right

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))

This isn't:

    awesomeLib().goesBrrrrr()

> Trying to make Vanilla JS a strict definition seems pointless to me in the first place.

Being able to name things, and having clarity in a community about what names denote, is anything but pointless.

When you do it this way isn't even a framework is just a helper library (at his best). There is another concept for this kind of micro-libraries but calling "framework" to something that will not establish a frame of work for you.

The important part is that if you don't copy VanJS into a script tag, or use it all, you're still doing Vanilla JS.

> 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.

Minor nitpick, third party library and framework does not modify your browser. They all still run on unmodified browsers.

A framework build not to be a framework, it's almost philosophical :)

https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/Fall2012/entries/liar-pa...

Suggestion: call it Bourbon JS. Wikipedia:

> The majority of the world's vanilla is the V. planifolia species, more commonly known as Bourbon vanilla.

Wait people write JavaScript without drinking bourbon?

My goto JS drink is Absinthe.

Please create a PR for my library goto-drink.js which uses labels for each libation so you can continue or break your drink.

You writing your front ends in Elm then?

I've been managing that since more than a decade. Having neither jQuery nor bourbon was a challenge at first but browser APIs evolved and I fell in love with green tea.

I prefer Scotch

No thanks, I get high with Javascript alone and a hangover so bad that lasts the entire weekend.

The relationship between Bourbon (spirit), primarily distilled and aged in Kentucky, and Bourbon (vanilla plant), primarily grown in Madagascar is one of fascinating cross-convergence of "things rich French speakers loved", plus the coincident accident of Bourbon, Kentucky being a shipping port (and Oak as an aging vessel high in imparting vanillins). Both are a reminder that vanilla as a flavor was long a spice for (and named after) kings and to be enjoyed mostly by the rich. It is still hilarious to see things like "vanilla JS" meant to imply "boring" or "cheap" when historically that's very inaccurate.

Also, yes, bourbon (spirit) is a good accompaniment to late nights in JavaScript.

The etymology is legit and comes from ice cream, for which vanilla is considered the default or “plain” flavoring.

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.

Though note it was primarily the invention of artificial vanilla substitutes that made vanilla seem cheap/attainable. (Real Bourbon vanilla from Madagascar, for instance, is still far more expensive than most people realize.) There may even be a larger useful metaphor there, too, that "plain" vanilla is most often "fake vanilla".

Lots of dessert / ice cream recipes use vanilla as an ingredient regardless of what the final flavor is meant to be. This also leads to the vanilla === plain misconception, imo.

Already taken. I know it's not JS but it's front end tooling.

https://www.bourbon.io/

Vanilla was already taken too:

https://github.com/idevz/vanilla

It's a zombie project as not many people use sass, let alone a heavy sass library.

bourbon.js it is?

Suggestion 2: call it IceCreamJS or just IceJS/CreamJS

jsAlaMode?

Vanilla.js is the most popular framework in the world!!!!

http://vanilla-js.com

Also has the smallest footprint:

0 bytes uncompressed, 25 bytes gzipped!

> 0 bytes uncompressed, 25 bytes gzipped!

Compression Considered Harmful

This is hilarious. I lost it at the empty line for loading it in production.

I clicked the download link to see what would happen, and it did indeed download a zero byte vanilla.js file. Zipping it using the OS X 'compress file' menu option gave me a 713 byte zip file however.

I understand the confusion, given the existing terms but it seems the intent behind the name 'VanJS' is to highlight the simplicity and 'bare-bones' nature of this new framework, aligning it with the 'vanilla' aspect.

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

I'd like to suggest my new reactive JS framework called "react.js" not to be confused with reactjs.

>While it might lead

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 ?

I agree with you and I opened https://github.com/vanjs-org/van/issues/18

I will up you. Using the word "vanilla" to refer to anything neutral, default, or basic is wrong.

Vanilla is a sophisticated flavor, not to mention a precious and expensive ingredient. Most people have never consumed real vanilla in their lifetime.

Similarly, using the word "original" to describe plain potato chips is wrong. It's the most unoriginal flavor of the lot. Just call it "plain".

It's not similar. Unfortunately, "original" is one of the words with a couple of very close but different meaning. This one even goes first in the dictionary:

> 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.

> Most people have never consumed real vanilla in their lifetime

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?

Even though the main character of the universe, you, has consumed real vanilla, the point stands. Almost everything labeled "vanilla" does not actually contain real vanilla.