Why "plugin" is technically inaccurate (but still the right word for vanilla JS components)

I’m not sure if jQuery invented the concept of a JavaScript plugin, but they sure as hell popularized it.

A JavaScript plugin is a bit of code that extends functionality, usually of a library or framework.

As jQuery’s popularity soared, so did the rise of jQuery plugins. Today, you can find plugins for Vue and React (where they’re called component libraries)

But there’s also a ton of vanilla JS plugins. And calling them that upsets technical purists.

What’s wrong with calling them plugins?

Last week, Twitter user .gz tweeted:

Lately I’ve found too many people using the expressions “Pure JavaScript Plugin” or “VanillaJS Plugin”. It makes me architecturally sad.

It makes no sense. 100% of the times it refers to a “library”, “component”, “widget”, or similar thing. It doesn’t plug into anything, it doesn’t extend or customize any existing program. It is a thing _on_itsown.

And in the literal sense, he’s right.

A jQuery plugin is a plugin because it extends jQuery. A Vue plugin is a plugin because it plugs into Vue to add more functionality.

Vanilla JS plugins aren’t hooking into anything, right? I’m not so sure.

Vanilla JS plugins are really plugins.

Sure, they’re not extending a library or framework.

But they are plugging into native JS methods and browser APIs and adding new functionality to an existing platform.

I don’t think the underlying architecture matters. What’s the difference? A jQuery plugin has one extra layer of abstraction between the plugin and the browser. Is that semantically important?

And even if you ignore all that, calling it a vanilla JS component a plugin provides a clear, established mental model about what the thing is for many developers.

A widget? Not so much. A component? Sounds like a UI thing. A library? Sounds like a big thing you build an entire site on top of, not a little feature enhancer.

Like it or not, plugin is the most easily understood term for what these things are.