This thesis deals with the study of existing frameworks for creating client-side applications, the Java platform, FITLayout software and software architecture design with a web interface, implementation of a web application, testing and comparing the functionality of desktop software with web application. Existing frameworks for the development of client-side applications in JavaScript programming language are described as well as the Java platform focused on creating a web application server component, FITLayout software for segmentation and analysis of documents. Software architecture design providing similar functionality such as existing graphical tools available in FITLayout and important aspects of implementation follows. At the end of the thesis testing of web application is described as well as comparison of desktop FITLayout software and web application that was implemented.

3D JavaScript frameworks are used for creating interactive 3D in web applications. There are two prominent frameworks: Babylon.js and Three.js. They are often compared to one another where performance and ease of use are mentioned as important factors.  A web developer could face choosing a 3D framework. This thesis aims to aid in that process. It investigates how Babylon.js compares to Three.js when it comes to performance such as memory use and frames per second for the end-user consuming a web app. It also investigates how they compare when it comes to ease of use for the developer in terms of initial learnability.  For the performance part, a web app with a minimalistic one box animation was created with each framework and deployed on Netlify. The web app was accessed with a browser’s developer tools to record memory and frames per second. For the ease of use part, observation sessions were made with nine developers who were tasked with getting a basic 3D model up and running locally with each framework with the official documentation as a starting point, one hour limit respectively.  Results showed that both frameworks performed equally when it came to frames per second, and Babylon.js used 2,2 MB, 46 %,  more memory. Only five out of eight or 63 % of the participants managed to implement a 3D model in Babylon.js and five out of nine or 56 %  in Three.js. Three.js scored slightly higher on ease of use than Babylon.js, but neither framework scored high on the overall scale. Participants favoured Babylon.js when asked to choose. However, almost all had a frustrating experience with both during the sessions. Performance is similar except for memory use when it comes to lightweight implementations in these frameworks. Initial learnability could be a gatekeeper. If users do not get past the first hurdle fast with quick feedback that a framework works in the most basic sense, a conceivable risk is they could give up and never use it.

This thesis compares three modern JavaScript frameworks—Next.js, SvelteKit, and Astro—for e-commerce web development, focusing on how different rendering strategies (Static Site Generation, Server-Side Rendering, and Client-Side Rendering) affect performance metrics like load times, interactivity, and resource efficiency. Prototype e-commerce applications were developed using each framework, and performance testing was conducted to measure First Contentful Paint (FCP), Largest Contentful Paint (LCP), Interaction to Next Paint (INP), page size, and SEO-friendliness. Results show that Astro and SvelteKit consistently outperforms Next.js in load times and resource efficiency. However, the differences in performance metrics are not drastically large. All three frameworks are capable of delivering high-quality e-commerce applications. Therefore, decision-makers should also consider factors such as developer experience, community support, and specific project requirements when selecting a framework.

JavaScript frameworks have become a rapidly growing and changing industry which led to the process of choosing a suitable framework becoming increasingly difficult. This is what this project address, it takes three of the most popular frameworks and compare them concerning three aspects; performance, modularity and usability to determine the most suitable one for a modern single-page application. The purpose was to be able to give a well-founded recommendation on which framework would be most suited for a given project. To determine which framework is most suitable, three of the most popular frameworks are considered: Angular, React and Vue. These are often referred to as the big three when it comes to JavaScript frameworks and hints at the fact that they are by far the most popular frameworks. By developing and deploying a modern single-page application with a focus on the front-end in each of the frameworks and performing tests in regards to the three aspects performance, modularity and usability test data could be measured and compared. The comparison was performed by evaluating the test results of the three aspects using a method called the analytical hierarchy process. The results show that the most suitable JavaScript framework for developing a frontend heavy single-page application would be React since it performed best in regards to performance and modularity. Vue comes in second with the most notable advantage being performing best when comparing usability since it was the framework considered to be the easiest one to learn. Angular comes in at a third place with the most notable advantage being that it was considered best at DOM-manipulation. All three frameworks are considered suitable to create a single-page application but from the perspective of this project, the most suitable would be React. Further research may be done into additional frameworks to give the study even more width. It would also be interesting to go more into depth in either of the aspects to get a more extensive analyze. / JavaScript-ramverk har blivit en snabbt växande och förändrande bransch som har innebärt att processen att välja lämpliga ramverk har blivit allt svårare. Detta är vad detta projekt försöker utreda, vi kommer att ta tre av de mest populära ramverken och jämföra dem angående tre aspekter, prestanda, modularitet och användarvänlighet för att bestämma det mest lämpliga för en modern single-page application. Syftet var att kunna ge en välgrundad rekommendation om vilket ramverk som skulle vara bäst lämpat för ett visst projekt. För att bestämma vilket ramverk som är bäst lämpat betraktas tre av de mest populära ramverken: Angular, React och Vue. Dessa benämns ofta de stora tre när det gäller JavaScript-ramverk och anknyter på att de överlägset är de mest populära ramverken. Genom att utveckla och sätta i produktion en modern single-page application med fokus på front-end i vart och ett av ramverken och utföra tester med avseende på de tre aspekterna prestanda, modularitet och användarvänlighet kan testdatan mätas och jämföras. Jämförelsen genomfördes genom att utvärdera testresultaten för de tre aspekterna med hjälp av metoden Analytic hierarchy process. Resultaten visar att det mest lämpliga JavaScript-ramverket för att utveckla en front-end tung single-page application skulle vara React eftersom det presterade bäst i aspekterna prestanda och modularitet. Vue kommer på andra plats med den mest anmärkningsvärda fördelen att den presterar bäst när man jämför användarvänlighet eftersom det var det ramverk som ansågs vara den enklaste att lära sig. Angular kommer in på en tredje-plats med den mest anmärkningsvärda fördelen att Angular ansågs bäst vid DOM-manipulation. Alla tre ramverk anses vara lämpliga för att skapa en single-page application men ur projektets perspektiv är React det mest lämpade ramverket. Vidare undersökning kan utföras i yttligare ramverk för att ge studien ytterligare bredd. Det skulle också kunna vara intressant att gå mer på djupet i någon av aspekterna för att få en mer omfattande analys.