Loosely following I wonder if it would be preferable to have a tag.

My reasoning is that, instead of negating all sorts of libraries, one could (by approximation) look up (and follow) the pure form.

Though various JS libraries still can be classified as JS, they constitute another realm of both questions and solutions.


To clarify, and follow @Sly Raskal's suggestion, I'll elaborate a bit.

What I mean is not to tag questions with alone, but as a sub-group. That is, we have questions tagged and ; one could also say .

As such, questions and answers targeting pure Javascript could easily be filtered. This is perhaps not how the tagging system works? As in "you can add this tag, but only if you also add that one".

As a silly example:

[javascript] add element to dom
6,171 results

[javascript] -[jquery] -[angularjs] -[d3.js] -[mootools] -[prototype.js] -[underscore.js] add element to dom
3,199 results

Yes, stands for more than 90% of that diff, but this is only a dumb example.

"vanilla-javascript" is also the first thing that popped into my mind; the new tag could have some other name if it were judged better. But from the answers I'm starting to realize this is a rather moot thing. Good points folks (besides JS not being used in its pure form, which I have to disagree with).

Also note that this is a question not an opinion.

  • 1
    Um, I always thought that the javascript tag did aim to describe basic javascript questions, errr, or am I missing something here? There is no wrong in labeling a question with javascript and jquery for example. – Anil Natha Feb 18 '14 at 4:50
  • @SlyRaskal: Case is that most question (at least the ones I have seen) include both. E.g. it has javascript + underscore.js, or javascript + jquery. Issue is that there is loads of libraries and as such questions targeting a pure javascript solution could be tagged vanilla as well as javascript. – user13500 Feb 18 '14 at 4:54
  • Well, the use of the javascript tag along with any of the many tags available for the javascript libraries is to help get the question exposure. I don't see any problem with using the tags in their present form. There may be people that may have the javascript tag favorited because they are experts in everything javascript, but don't favorite the jquery tag or any of the other library tags because they will answer anything javascript related. In any case, vanilla javascript is synonmous with javascript IMHO. So I'm not understanding the distinction you are attempting to make with this. – Anil Natha Feb 18 '14 at 5:05

If you want your JavaScript "vanilla", just tag your post with "JavaScript". Answers using Library X (jQuery, Underscore, etc) are usually not well received unless the question is tagged with the library-specific tag.

I don't think we need this any more than we need a "vanilla-php" tag, for when you want PHP-only answers without CodeIgniter/Zend/etc. The "vanilla" is implied by lack of other tags.

| improve this answer | |
  • Well, I'm more on the answering side of things then the questioning side as well as trying to edit and retag when appropriate. But thanks for response. – user13500 Feb 18 '14 at 5:54

I see where you are going with this, but introducing a slang term is not a good resolution to that. If the issue is searching for plain javascript (no library) then search around for a problem that you are encountering.

However, Stack Overflow is not really a tutorial system for implementing every new feature up for consideration. The best path forward for any user is going to be to make a best effort attempt at actually learning the content on their own from official sources (ECMAScript, W3C.org, MDN, ejohn.org, etc.).

Once something strange occurs, then consult SO to see if that was encountered before. Look for the issue with relation to the and more than likely there is a solution or explanation. However, looking for is not going to improve that scenario whatsoever. If there is truly a situation which arises while using javascript, then a search for that situation in the javascript tag should easily produce a result.

In fact, "Vanilla JS" is satire. The claim of being "a fast, lightweight, cross-platform framework for building incredible, powerful JavaScript applications" is merely touting JavaScript's own strengths.

So to reiterate, no, there is no reason for a vanilla-javascript tag as it would be just be jargon. Moreover, using satire in a tag name could confuse people and would more than likely just end up being a synonym.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks for pointing out the existence of Vanilla JS. I didn't know that already existed and updated my own comment to reflect that. Cheers. – Anil Natha Feb 18 '14 at 5:31
  • 1
    @SlyRaskal: I don't think you get what vanilla-js.com is for. ;) – Qantas 94 Heavy Feb 18 '14 at 5:55
  • 1
    @Qantas94Heavy, touche! I didn't RTFM. ;) should have read more on that page when I visited it. How funny though! – Anil Natha Feb 18 '14 at 6:08

I would say no because it sort of adds noise. It's well-known that JavaScript all-alone is not used really. But having a JavaScript tag is useful, and adding a vanilla flavor adds some a complication.

I can see down the line someone then asking for a vanilla-vanilla-JS tag.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    Thanks. I would argue that JS is used all alone as well as in library context. Anyhow, if one use say jQuery there is still a lot of issues that is related to ECMA-script specification and has nothing to do with the library in use. Say: "What is closures?". It has nothing to do with any library, (unless of course it is a library closure addition ;) – user13500 Feb 18 '14 at 5:03
  • 3
    "It's well-known that JavaScript all-alone is not used really" [citation-needed]. – yannis Feb 18 '14 at 13:22

In my opinion no, because JS is not commonly used in pure mode now, except for building new JS libraries. But it is good to have a javascript tag.

| improve this answer | |
  • Yes, there has to be a javascript tag. My question is if we could have vanilla-javascript as a sub-group. When it comes to if JS is commonly used in pure mode, – I have to say that I both write a lot of pure JS and is in touch with lot of people doing the same. It all depends on what you do, for what purpose etc. – user13500 Feb 18 '14 at 4:59
  • 2
    @user13500, Using the javascript tag all by itself on a post, without adding any of the other library specific javascript tags (ie. jquery, angular, etc) should already aim to describe that you're strictly working with javascript or 'pure mode javascript' as you call it. This is why I stated the vanilla javascript tag you are proposing is synonymous with the javascript tag. – Anil Natha Feb 18 '14 at 5:13
  • @SlyRaskal: Yes, my intention is, as various library javascript questions (rarely?) are tagged with the library alone, a sub-tag of vanilla (or some other appropriate name) could be appended to javascript. Such as javascript + vanilla-javascript, not! vanilla-javascript alone (but not sure if that could be enforced). Simply as an attempt to tag-clearify for searches etc. this is pure javascript. But I'm perhaps missing something in the tagging system and how it operate. – user13500 Feb 18 '14 at 5:22
  • 1
    @user13500 I think I now understand what you're trying to get at. You want a tag that is dedicated solely to posts that are for pure javascript so that in instances where the javascript tag and a js library tag are used, you can filter all of those out and focus on the pure vanilla javascript posts. I think people will be confused since we already have the javascript tag for that reason. I'd even argue that some would mistake 'vanilla-javascript' as the name of a JS library, if it existed! LOL. Please clarify your post to describe what I now understand you're getting at. Cheers. – Anil Natha Feb 18 '14 at 6:09
  • If there is a jquery, prototype or extJs tags, then there should be Vanella-js tag also. But it will depends on the usage that how much its use it, because creating a tag for a small usage will be not good. Everyone will then suggest a tag for every thing. – Altaf Hussain Feb 18 '14 at 8:15

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .