IMHO, Dojo, Prototype.js, JQuery and most other "big" JS libraries are more or less the same.
Dojo was very bloated in the past, but the Dojo team have cleaned a lot, which makes it a quite lean and mean library atm. I've always been a Prototype.js fan because the programming model looks the most like Java (objects vs. functions). I'm using JQuery on my current project and I must say, I like it. It offers a really productive API, but it's a quite difficult library for beginners, because it relies heavily on function chaining, closures, etc. Prototye.js code is often longer, but also more readable. But because Prototype.js is also moving towards a more "oneliner API" and Dojo is getting leaner, I would say, let the license decide. JQuery: MIT + GPL. Don't know if MIT can be used? Prototype.js: Also MIT Dojo: BSD + Academic Free License I've checked out some other libraries (YUI, Sajax...) and it looks like BSD is a much used licensing model amongst JS libraries... I wouldn't use ExtJS because of the reasons stated by Ganesh. If MIT is compatible with Apache, I would use JQuery, otherwise, if BSD or Academic Free License is compatible with Apache, use Dojo, otherwise we need to look for another JS library which has a good license... My 2 cents, /JK 2009/5/27 Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>: > Yes, I looked at this library for GWT work a couple weeks ago. It's > compatible in theory, but not in practice. > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Ganesh <gan...@j4fry.org> wrote: >> AFAIK ExtJS may not be altered and resold commercially - they have a 2nd >> commercial license. The whole thing is developed commercially. IMHO they use >> OS just to get their excellent product into the market, but they don't have >> the OS spirit. >
