Here's some data for the different Ajax Frameworks in this world so that users can compare for themselves the different Ajax Frameworks.
YSlow scores
This table just compares the different scores and data from YSlow. Mostly this have been done on the "landing pages" of the different Ajax Frameworks home pages since most Ajax Frameworks have some sort of sample running on their Landing Pages.
(*) - These Ajax Frameworks are loading JS scripts in IFrames, so really the numbers here are probably WAY higher...
Also the initial load time may be for me in Ra-Ajax' advantage since Ra-Ajax is deployed on servers in Norway while all the other are probably in the US. You might experience the quite opposite effect if you're located in the US. Though no matter where you are in this world, unless our servers gets a crash I *highly* doubt that any of the above pages will load faster on *any* computer then the TreeView sample in Ra-Ajax. And feel free to pick ANY sample in our samples and profile ANY other sample against in ANY of the above Ajax Frameworks...
"Winners" in each category (after modifying for iframes and such) are in Green color. "Loosers" are in Red color.
The above scores *might* not be representative for the performance of the different Ajax Frameworks since this is either the Framework's "Landing Page" or the landing page of their samples. And server-configurations might make the numbers turn out differently if the servers are configured for GZipping and creating Far Future expire dates and such. Still I think this would be the performance one would mostly be able to expect with the given frameworks "out of the box" and that it gives a relatively accurate performance number for the framework "out of the box". Also GZipping would seriously reduce the size of the JS files (and increase the YSlow score) which mostly is a "server-configuration" thing.
Also some of the samples was WAY richer than other samples, like for instance the ExtJS and ExtGWT samples were the by FAR most "advanced" show-cases, then followed by Ra-Ajax as #3. While the GWT was probably the least advanced show-case and basically just showed of a couple of CheckBoxes which virtually did NOTHING. This will obviously affect the results significantly.
These Ajax Frameworks are to a large extend VERY different beasts, e.g. the ones below are JavaScript frameworks and have virtually no server-side bindings at all;
- ExtJS
- jQuery
- MooTools
- Prototype
While the next list of Ajax Frameworks are
Managed Ajax Frameworks;
- Ra-Ajax - ASP.NET & Mono
- GWT - Java
- ExtGWT - Java (GWT I think)
In general terms the Managed Ajax Frameworks will be far easier to use if they're "managed towards" the platform you wish to build for (e.g. GWT would be far easier to use for Java Ajax Apps then jQuery and so on) while at the same time they're virtually *impossible* to use for OTHER platforms than the ones you've chosen to build for.
Also the Managed Ajax Frameworks mostly require ZERO JavaScript knowledge to consume.
So why did I do this?
I *really* love the Open Web and Ajax (obviously!) though I feel that for the Open Web to be able to prevail and "win" we are all dependant upon being able to create really advanced web-applications in as short a Time2Market period possibly able to achieve. And today the most popular Ajax Frameworks are by FAR the BEST ones, e.g. look at the small amount of visibility MooTools is given compared to some of the other (obviously WAY worse) Ajax JavaScript Frameworks. And I think by getting objective data to base your judgement upon you will be able to easier "pick the best tool for the job"...
And if you don't pick the BEST tools for the job then probably many of you will resort back to ActiveX2.0 later down the road since you will conclude with that "Ajax is Broken"...
Ajax MATTERS and Ajax is GREAT! Even though your current Ajax Framework might seem very hard to use or consume. And Ajax CAN create a staggering performance for you :)