> HN wouldn't accept a comment listing all the successful JS frameworks that use class based inheritance because it would be too long. That certainly doesn't m

> HN wouldn't accept a comment listing all the successful JS frameworks that use class based inheritance because it would be too long. That certainly doesn't mean that class-based ones are the most successful. > Your understanding of web development may be amiss, how the tables have turned! Web apps are around because of the delivery mechanism: the web. Not because they offer astounding experiences compared to a hypothetical desktop counterpart, but because cloud storage and scaling, always on availability, and browser ubiquity can be leveraged by users for great gains. Web application developers constantly struggle to provide the "native" experience while leveraging all the benefits of the web, but its hard, hence the post. The browser would be long dead if it wasn't for JavaScript. > an extraordinary tool Agreed. > you and I both use religiously There is no religion on my part, it simply gets the job done, and allows me to focus on architecting my application instead of DOM bugs. > However, I have found that its hard to scale up a large complex client side app using only jQuery, and I and seemingly many other feel the need for more structured frameworks to leverage in that domain. Do you disagree? This is not a yes or no question, it depends on what's the problem, as I said in another comment, it's really easy to fix your dual validation problem, by writing a small micro framework, if there isn't one out there yet. It has become really easy to bridge the server and the client. You could abstract away any problem, but you shouldn't get too carried away with hierarchies, JavaScript is a semi-interpreted language and as I said, it's more function and prototypical than object(class) oriented .I agree that web development is hard, but as I said earlier, it's hard because of archaic browsers.