Will ExtJS die? [closed]

Asked 27/10, 2009 at 20:19 Answered 14/5, 2010 at 17:22

Solved javascript extjs rich-internet-application

I look at ExtJS, and it appears to provide many of the RIA features that more bulky suites such as Flex provide, without the flash requirement. However, as Open-source initiatiatives such as jQuery-UI continue, will ExtJS simply die at some point? Furthermore, since flash penetration only continues to increase, why put stock in a javascript library?

That said, JavaScript libraries such as jQuery have made gigantic leaps in providing easy-to-use APIs with great functionality, so maybe there's some merit in that.

Thoughts? Opinions? ExtJS has a price tag, so I have to ask this question.

One answered 27/10, 2009 at 20:19 Comment(5)

Flash only gains traction when it loses it in others. JavaScript is going to be around for a good long time. – Poetry 27/10, 2009 at 21:48

@Stefan - these questions need to be asked whether or not the technology has a price tag! – Sokotra 27/10, 2009 at 22:36

@Stephen: Good point. I just think it's harder to justify investing money in a dying cow that costs money over one that doesn't. – One 28/10, 2009 at 1:13

Just for historical perspective, since this question was asked, the Ext JS community has grown 10x as of Fall 2013 – Amnion 3/10, 2013 at 4:25

the everything that has a beginning has the end – Lindesnes 28/11, 2021 at 13:54

IMHO, the need in jQuery, ExtJS etc. will be eliminated as soon as XBL2, entire collection of CSS3 specifications, SVG and HTML5 all get available in an equal extent across all desktop/mobile web-browsers, which is not going to hapen within coming 5 years.

I look at ExtJS, and it appears to provide many of the RIA features that more bulky suites such as Flex provide, without the flash requirement.

To run Flex application you still need Flash player, which for example is not available on mobile devices

However, as Open-source initiatiatives such as jQuery-UI continue, will ExtJS simply die at some point?

Comparing ExtJS to jQuery-UI doesn't make good sense, since jQuery is primarily a cross-browser library to simplify operations on HTML documents and make web-pages nicer, while ExtJS is a true aplication framework that brings enhanced data-driven UI components to make applications easier.

Furthermore, since flash penetration only continues to increase, why put stock in a javascript library?

It doesn't really matter that Flash penetration "only continues to increase", since it is already available on 98% of desktop devices. Putting stock in a Javascript library makes sence, believe Google (who put most of its stock in DHTML)

will ExtJS simply die at some point?

Indeed it will, as at some point will die .Net, Java etc. It will not die in a foreseen future however and the need for this kind of Flesh-less solutions will only increase.

You may also want to take look into an alternative GUI framework Ample SDK, which will go Open-Source on 1st November this year. It enables technologies, such as SVG, XUL and more equally cross browser.

Marta answered 27/10, 2009 at 22:9 Comment(7)

#1: jQuery-UI provides UI controls, much like ExtJS. #2: Ample still charges for commercial deployment :/. Other than that, it looks comparable to ExtJS. – One 28/10, 2009 at 1:18

jQuery UI and Ext JS are really not comparable (and they do not try to be). Ext JS is a full-stack RIA framework, while jQuery UI is mainly still focused on website interactions (droppable, sortable, etc). I believe jQuery may be moving in a more RIA direction, but slowly. If you want to seriously compare Ext JS to something, try Dojo, YUI, Sproutcore, etc. – Subalternate 28/10, 2009 at 9:10

Ample SDK is MIT/GPL as of 1st November – Marta 28/10, 2009 at 18:58

I'd say they won't die at least in ten years – Glisten 5/3, 2012 at 15:44

hmm, HTML5 is here, CSS3 is here ... JS Frameworks are only gaining speed :) – Tweedy 17/6, 2013 at 17:45

jquery-UI doesn't even provide a table/grid – Slimy 25/6, 2014 at 14:13

w2ui provides a table/grid – Osrock 5/1, 2015 at 22:11

I don't think Ext JS will die anytime soon. When it will it will probably be one of the last JS frameworks standing. I'm saying this because ExtJS has a solid user and developer base and lots of open source projects are building on it (e.g. an ASP.NET dual-licensed CMS, Sense/Net builds its backend entirely around it among others).

Felker answered 27/10, 2009 at 23:46 Comment(2)

lol it became a ghost already – Teuton 22/1, 2020 at 12:19

2022 and thankfully to vue and react, extjs past away. – Eraeradiate 24/10, 2022 at 12:40

They have a solid user-base and I don't see them leaving the race anytime soon. That said you can always look at the Internet as you look into the general market. Both Starbucks and the local cafe can co-exist.

That said...

Compare the trends between jQuery, ExtJS and Mootools

Subversive answered 27/10, 2009 at 20:29 Comment(2)

This comparison is somewhat disingenuous since ExtJS targets a different niche (app/full stack) than mootools and jquery (page enhancement). A more apt comparison would be extjs, dojo, yui, sproutcore. The page enhancement frameworks have been moving into the app space (e.g. jQuery UI) but even just going by questions on SO, the primary use is still enhancement. – Zel 27/10, 2009 at 22:25

@Karl Guertin I absolutely agree with your comment. That said the trends still hold some value. – Subversive 27/10, 2009 at 23:57

III'm not a javascript/DOM guru, just an ASP.NET programmer and now-and-then FlashBuilder coder who is looking into 100% client-side libraries. What I am finding is that ExtJS is much richer in its layouts and its UI widgetry than jQuery -- though jQuery has much momentum and new UI components are coming all the time. Still, ExtJS has a major lead in this regard.

With jQuery it is a lot easier to get something basic up and running mainly because jQuery hangs its effects on existing elements in your page markup: you can create a skeletal html page and then apply jQuery functionality to the elements. Compare that to ExtJS where your page is basically an empty body tag and the page contents are created by Ext writing to the DOM. Without the Ext (visual) Designer to lay out my pages and set properties, coding ExtJS configuration objects with a text editor is far too tedious for me and not at all to my liking. But with Ext's visual Designer, you do approach RAD.

ExtJS on IE8 can be slow and sloppy because of IE8's shortcomings. In my experience ExtJS RIA layouts work beautifully on FF, Chrome, and Opera but not nearly as well on IE8. However, IE8 with Google's Chrome-Frame addresses that. Nice gut-punch to those Proprietarians at MSFT, guys at Google!

I really like the hybrid approach FlashBuilder takes. With FB, you can write mxml and/or ActionScript classes. The down-side, as I see it, is that the Flash plug-in is required, and I fear that the Flash plug-in is going the way of that other dodo, WordPerfect, which once roamed the earth with 99% market share. I really wish one could design in FlashBuilder taking full advantage of ActionScript's OO features. mxml, and the FB debugger, and then cross-compile to ExtJS! FB : Ext :: GWT : Closure.

Betsybetta answered 14/5, 2010 at 17:22 Comment(0)

Like with each technology, everybody will have his own piece of cake. ExtJS will not die until ExtJS LLC exists (they are using it :)) And until they will have worshipers using their lib (like me) when You are at some point You just have to use chosen technology, no matter if it is perfect or not. Look at Lotus Domino - it is piece of crap and on the other hand piece of great software - and it is still alive... :)

Politics answered 27/10, 2009 at 20:27 Comment(0)

ExtJS has dual-license And it's opens source

See here general details

And here licenses

And i using it. Good library for working with data - grids, trees... you name it. And it has many controls. so just good library...

Sholapur answered 27/10, 2009 at 20:27 Comment(0)

As long as the developers continue to work on it, the framework won't die. There have been a few frameworks that are effectively dead (e.g. MochiKit, which I love but have dropped for yui3) but that only means that they're not getting updated, not that they're unusable. If you liked one well enough, you could easily put out your own release and start up the project again.

Zel answered 27/10, 2009 at 22:29 Comment(1)

No updates equates to unusable in a world where bugs exist and need to be addressed. – Stereoisomerism 9/2, 2012 at 20:35

Personally, I use Prototype, but it's the same argument. I strongly dislike flash due to the numerous security issues that follow it and the fact that not all devices can play flash. The iPhone is one major example. It CAN support animations and other things using JS libraries.

Some companies also disable flash as policy for security, although this isn't all that common. (I've worked places where this was the case, however.)

Another question is whether we'll care about flash with the advent of new HTML standards will largely eliminate the need for Flash altogether.

Langsyne answered 27/10, 2009 at 20:24 Comment(6)

HTML Standards will never eliminate the need for Flash. They depend on the browser for implementation. If browsers have taught us anything, it should be that none of them can follow the standard! – Septemberseptembrist 27/10, 2009 at 20:26

@JustinNiessner: Still stand by that comment in '09? ;) – One 10/2, 2012 at 3:11

@Stefan Kendall - Yes. I do. Flash is still very much a part of the web. While its market share may have gone down, it is by no means eliminated. – Septemberseptembrist 10/2, 2012 at 12:43

@JustinNessner: Okay. I'll come back in 2013, when Adobe has not only abandoned flash - but actively recommended removing it from any installed system. :P – One 10/2, 2012 at 18:47

dying - it's not suicide though – Busiek 29/1, 2015 at 2:13

It seems that @StefanKendall was right 8-) – Phobos 22/3 at 9:26

Recommended topics

Hot tags