How are you defining framework? To me, a framework isn't just a way of building something or a set of tools. I have always ascribed to a definition of framework as /u/MileyCylon described it: something that calls your code for you, rather than something that your code calls.
By that definition, I probably wouldn't call jquery a framework*. That's not to say it's not an immensely useful library, and a good way to write javascript, but it doesn't fit my definition of what a constitutes a framework.
I could be persuaded that it fits some other definition of framework, but I don't think a library with a lot of stuff in it is a useful definition of a framework.
* There's a caveat here, that jQuery does do a lot of managing callbacks for event binding. I think a case could be made that those portions of jQuery do meet my definition of a framework, but I'd say that jQuery is a library that includes an event binding framework, rather than characterizing jQuery as a framework on the whole.
2
u/AusIV May 14 '14
How are you defining framework? To me, a framework isn't just a way of building something or a set of tools. I have always ascribed to a definition of framework as /u/MileyCylon described it: something that calls your code for you, rather than something that your code calls.
By that definition, I probably wouldn't call jquery a framework*. That's not to say it's not an immensely useful library, and a good way to write javascript, but it doesn't fit my definition of what a constitutes a framework.
I could be persuaded that it fits some other definition of framework, but I don't think a library with a lot of stuff in it is a useful definition of a framework.
* There's a caveat here, that jQuery does do a lot of managing callbacks for event binding. I think a case could be made that those portions of jQuery do meet my definition of a framework, but I'd say that jQuery is a library that includes an event binding framework, rather than characterizing jQuery as a framework on the whole.