Awesomplete vs jQuery

Overview

jQuery

Stacks195.3K

Followers70.6K

Votes6.6K

GitHub Stars59.6K

Forks20.5K

Awesomplete

Stacks61

Followers8

Votes2

GitHub Stars7.0K

Forks607

Awesomplete vs jQuery: What are the differences?

Introduction: In this comparison, we will outline the key differences between Awesomplete and jQuery to help developers choose the right tool for their web development needs.

Functionality: Awesomplete is a lightweight autocomplete library focused solely on providing autocomplete functionality, while jQuery is a comprehensive library offering a wide range of features beyond autocomplete, such as DOM manipulation and event handling.
Dependency: Awesomplete does not require any additional libraries or dependencies to work, making it a standalone solution. On the other hand, jQuery relies on the jQuery library, which needs to be included in the project for jQuery functions to be accessible.
File Size: Due to its focused functionality, Awesomplete has a smaller file size compared to jQuery, making it a preferable choice for projects where minimizing the overall file size is crucial for performance optimization.
Customization: Awesomplete provides limited customization options, primarily focusing on autocomplete behavior and appearance. In contrast, jQuery offers extensive customization capabilities, allowing developers to tailor UI components and functionalities to their specific requirements.
Learning Curve: Awesomplete's straightforward API and simple configuration make it easy to integrate into projects with minimal learning curve. In comparison, jQuery's comprehensive documentation and feature-rich nature may require a steeper learning curve for developers new to the library.

In Summary, Awesomplete is ideal for projects requiring lightweight autocomplete functionality with minimal dependencies, while jQuery offers a comprehensive library with extensive customization options and a broader range of features.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on jQuery, Awesomplete

Malek

Web developer at Quicktext

Mar 28, 2020

Decided

The project is a web gadget previously made using vanilla script and JQuery, It is a part of the "Quicktext" platform and offers an in-app live & customizable messaging widget. We made that remake with React eco-system and Typescript and we're so far happy with results. We gained tons of TS features, React scaling & re-usabilities capabilities and much more!

What do you think?

244k views244k

Comments

kazi

CTO at Blubird Interactive Ltd.

Mar 11, 2020

Decided

I've an eCommerce platform building using Laravel, MySQL and jQuery. It's working good and if anyone become interested, I just deploy the entire source cod e in environment / Hosting. This is not a good model of course. Because everyone ask for small or large amount of change and I had to do this. Imagine when there will be 100 separate deploy and I had to manage 100 separate source.
So How do I make my system architecture so that I'll have a core / base source code. To make any any change / update on specific deployment, it will be theme / plugin / extension based . Also if I introduce an API layer then I could handle the Web, Mobile App and POS as well ? Is the API should be part of source code or a individual single API and all the deployment will use that API ?

115k views115k

Comments

Manatsawin

Jan 19, 2020

Decided

When I started TipMe, I thought about using React frontend. At the end, plain, simple jQuery won.

I had to build this iteration of the site fast and by using jQuery I could keep using Django as a full stack development tool. One important point is Django form (combined with Django Bootstrap3) means that I don't have to reinvent form rendering again, which will be the case with React.

Over time, more interactivity seeped into the site and React components start making its way into the codebase.

I now wish the site is built using React so that I could add more user friendly interfaces easier (no more fuddling with server states) but I would still say jQuery helped me get past those early days.

225k views225k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

jQuery	Awesomplete
jQuery is a cross-platform JavaScript library designed to simplify the client-side scripting of HTML.	It is Ultra lightweight, customizable, simple autocomplete widget with zero dependencies, built with modern standards for modern browsers.
-	Lightweight;Customizable; Simple ;Built with modern standards for modern browsers
Statistics
GitHub Stars 59.6K	GitHub Stars 7.0K
GitHub Forks 20.5K	GitHub Forks 607
Stacks 195.3K	Stacks 61
Followers 70.6K	Followers 8
Votes 6.6K	Votes 2
Pros & Cons
Pros 1263 Cross-browser 957 Dom manipulation 809 Power 660 Open source 610 Plugins Cons 6 Large size 5 Encourages DOM as primary data source 5 Sometimes inconsistent API 2 Live events is overly complex feature	Pros 1 Zero dependencies 1 Lightweight
Integrations
No integrations available	HTML5 JavaScript Firefox Google Chrome

What are some alternatives to jQuery, Awesomplete?

AngularJS

AngularJS lets you write client-side web applications as if you had a smarter browser. It lets you use good old HTML (or HAML, Jade and friends!) as your template language and lets you extend HTML’s syntax to express your application’s components clearly and succinctly. It automatically synchronizes data from your UI (view) with your JavaScript objects (model) through 2-way data binding.

React

Lots of people use React as the V in MVC. Since React makes no assumptions about the rest of your technology stack, it's easy to try it out on a small feature in an existing project.

Vue.js

It is a library for building interactive web interfaces. It provides data-reactive components with a simple and flexible API.

jQuery UI

Whether you're building highly interactive web applications or you just need to add a date picker to a form control, jQuery UI is the perfect choice.

Svelte

If you've ever built a JavaScript application, the chances are you've encountered – or at least heard of – frameworks like React, Angular, Vue and Ractive. Like Svelte, these tools all share a goal of making it easy to build slick interactive user interfaces. Rather than interpreting your application code at run time, your app is converted into ideal JavaScript at build time. That means you don't pay the performance cost of the framework's abstractions, or incur a penalty when your app first loads.

Flux

Flux is the application architecture that Facebook uses for building client-side web applications. It complements React's composable view components by utilizing a unidirectional data flow. It's more of a pattern rather than a formal framework, and you can start using Flux immediately without a lot of new code.

Famo.us

Famo.us is a free and open source JavaScript platform for building mobile apps and desktop experiences. What makes Famo.us unique is its JavaScript rendering engine and 3D physics engine that gives developers the power and tools to build native quality apps and animations using pure JavaScript.

Riot

Riot brings custom tags to all browsers. Think React + Polymer but with enjoyable syntax and a small learning curve.

Marko

Marko is a really fast and lightweight HTML-based templating engine that compiles templates to readable Node.js-compatible JavaScript modules, and it works on the server and in the browser. It supports streaming, async rendering and custom tags.

Kendo UI

Fast, light, complete: 70+ jQuery-based UI widgets in one powerful toolset. AngularJS integration, Bootstrap support, mobile controls, offline data solution.

Related Comparisons

Awesomplete vs jQuery: What are the differences?

Introduction: In this comparison, we will outline the key differences between Awesomplete and jQuery to help developers choose the right tool for their web development needs.

Functionality: Awesomplete is a lightweight autocomplete library focused solely on providing autocomplete functionality, while jQuery is a comprehensive library offering a wide range of features beyond autocomplete, such as DOM manipulation and event handling.
Dependency: Awesomplete does not require any additional libraries or dependencies to work, making it a standalone solution. On the other hand, jQuery relies on the jQuery library, which needs to be included in the project for jQuery functions to be accessible.
File Size: Due to its focused functionality, Awesomplete has a smaller file size compared to jQuery, making it a preferable choice for projects where minimizing the overall file size is crucial for performance optimization.
Customization: Awesomplete provides limited customization options, primarily focusing on autocomplete behavior and appearance. In contrast, jQuery offers extensive customization capabilities, allowing developers to tailor UI components and functionalities to their specific requirements.
Learning Curve: Awesomplete's straightforward API and simple configuration make it easy to integrate into projects with minimal learning curve. In comparison, jQuery's comprehensive documentation and feature-rich nature may require a steeper learning curve for developers new to the library.

Awesomplete vs jQuery

Overview