The Inevitable Lifecycle of JavaScript Frameworks

Few technologies are as integral to the Internet as we know it today as JavaScript. While there are dozens of backend solutions—from the quirky and traditional PHP to relative newcomers like Python and Node.js—there is only one scripting language for frontend development. Whether you use a transpiler or avant-garde alternatives like PyScript, everything must ultimately be translated into JavaScript to run in browsers. For better or worse, this means every web developer needs at least a general knowledge of the language. There is a vast number of JavaScript frameworks in the world—from the nearly ubiquitous Angular, React, and Vue.js to lesser-known but equally interesting Meteor, Mithril, or Polymer. Many of these solutions are not only for frontend. For instance, Node.js quickly became one of the most convenient and popular runtime environments on the market. If it seems like too much, it is. The lifecycle of JavaScript and its many derivatives causes headaches, but there are reasons for that. Why does this happen? And what are the implications for our projects? Before we answer these questions, a brief history lesson.

The Birth of JavaScript

In the 1990s, the World Wide Web (what we commonly call the Internet) was a very different place. The idea of dynamic web pages was limited to a visitor counter at the bottom of the page that incremented each time someone visited. In other words, the web was static, and Netscape wanted to change that. Together with Sun Microsystems, Netscape introduced the Java programming language as a scripting solution in its flagship browser. At the time, Java was at its peak popularity. It was popular, powerful, and, most importantly, revolutionary in software development because it brought object-oriented programming to the forefront. At some point, Netscape's leaders decided it would be better to create a new language rather than rely on a third-party license. So they handed the project to Brendan Eich, and in 10 days, JavaScript was born. Yes, you read that correctly: in 10 days. The official release of JavaScript was in December 1995, and a year later, Netscape submitted it to Ecma International as a starting point for creating a standard specification that all browser vendors could comply with. The rest is history. By 2023, 98% of all web pages used JavaScript in some form. That same cobbled-together language created in 10 days turned into a powerful juggernaut in web development. But, as we will see, the process was far from straightforward.

Early JavaScript, jQuery, and AJAX

JavaScript has always had a reputation as a quirky and buggy language. And, honestly, that's not entirely fair. Although the language has advanced significantly over the past 20 years, many of its shortcomings can be attributed to early versions and a rushed development cycle. Credit where credit is due: Eich pulled off an impressive engineering feat, but some things can only be fixed with time and testing. The language is inefficient, unstructured, and inelegant. It has competing paradigms baked into its design and overlapping features. It is terribly verbose for some things and quite terse for others. But it solved a big problem and, thanks to a very engaged community, found its place in the tech industry. To a large extent, JavaScript was saved by one of the most popular libraries—jQuery. This small project simplified JavaScript and found solutions to problems developers faced, including AJAX—a set of web development techniques using various client-side technologies to create asynchronous web applications. In short, jQuery served as a rallying point for developers. It provided common ground for shaping web development paradigms, and it was so successful and convenient that it is still used on over 70% of all web pages today. How did we go from this fairly stable paradigm to the lifecycle crisis we live in today?

JavaScript After the 2010s

JavaScript development never stopped. In fact, most things that jQuery did early on are now part of vanilla JavaScript. Starting with ECMAScript 6 in 2015, we get annual updates, ranging from minor tweaks to huge additions like async functions. This indicates that the JavaScript ecosystem is dynamic and constantly evolving, with little regard for stability. JavaScript frameworks, especially the most popular ones, are known for getting new revisions. For example, Angular has undergone 14 revisions in its 10 years on the market. Vue.js? 19 versions in 8 years. React has had 18 versions from 2013 to 2022. For comparison, the C++ language has had 6 major versions in 20 years. The disparity is obvious. This growth parallels the increase in computing power of computers/smart devices, as well as browser capabilities. Simply put, it's a self-sustaining cycle: better browsers demand better frameworks, and those in turn push browser technology forward. Additionally, JavaScript culture tends to follow current trends, favoring new technologies over proven solutions. An analysis of framework trends on StackOverflow shows that interest in frameworks wanes after a couple of years, and only React has maintained steady growth from 2016 to 2023. The treadmill of revisions is certainly addictive. It's easy to get caught up in the latest novelty without understanding how it will affect our products. This is especially true for depreciation. While most companies are sensible enough to thoroughly review documentation before implementing an update, it's easy to miss a couple of lines. And what's the result? Suddenly the code is no longer compatible with the framework.

What This Means for Your Business

On one hand, having such a huge and energetic community is wonderful. The ecosystem has gone wild, and now we see how powerful JavaScript and web applications can be. On the other hand, JavaScript fatigue is real. Developers experience stress, burnout, and frustration because it's very difficult to keep up with all the changes in the ecosystem in such a short amount of time. Do you really need to keep track of the latest versions? Maybe. The only sensible advice I can give at this point is to understand that not all changes are good, and that new revisions always require some degree of retraining. Don't throw yourself into the fray if your current solution is delivering results. In other words, think before you leap.