shouldiuse.io

VERDICT

Should I use JSHint?

JSHint, a JavaScript Code Quality Tool - jshint.com

Depends. Fine (and free) if you need a quick JavaScript error checker for legacy or small codebases. Skip it for new projects — ESLint is the modern default most teams and comparisons now recommend.

Confidence

Medium. Based on ~14 substantive public sources; many other citations merely reference the tool by name.

Ratings

  • Value for money
  • Ease of use
  • Feature depth
  • Support quality
  • Security posture

Pricing

$0

Free / open source

ModelCommunity-driven
Monthly feesNot disclosed
HardwareNot disclosed
Free tierYes

Best for

  • Quick browser-based JS sanity checks
  • Legacy JavaScript codebases
  • JS beginners debugging homework
  • Jenkins CI lint gates

Not for

  • New greenfield JS projects
  • Teams wanting auto-fix and formatting
  • Non-JavaScript stacks
  • Enterprises needing vendor SLAs

Gotchas - check before you buy

medium

Volunteer-maintained; expect no roadmap or uptime promises

medium

No security page; vet releases yourself before CI adoption

low

Born from a JSLint fork over opinionated defaults; config philosophy debates persist

low

Guess: migrating to ESLint later means rewriting your config and rules

Pros and cons

Pros

  • Free and open source, no commitment
  • Paste code in the browser for instant checks
  • Community-driven and less opinionated than JSLint
  • Runs in CI builds like Jenkins
  • Configurable options to match your team's style

Cons

  • No published security page
  • Detects problems only; no auto-fix
  • Community-run; no paid support or SLA
  • Recent tool comparisons favor newer linters

Sources & method

Analyzed 9/21/2026 - 8 sources - No known vulnerabilities found in the sources reviewed.

official x3review x4security x1

Key stats

  • Value for money: 5/5

    Rating

  • $0

    Starting price

  • 8

    Sources

  • Analyzed

  • Value for money: 5/5. Completely free, open source
  • Ease of use: 4/5. Paste code, get errors instantly
  • Feature depth: 2/5. Guess: lags ESLint's plugin ecosystem
  • Support quality: 2/5. Guess: volunteers only, no paid support
  • Security posture: 2/5. No public security page found
  • $0 Price No paid tiers found
  • Yes Free tier Fully free, open source
  • 2010 First released Community fork of JSLint
  • Community-driven Model No vendor or SLA

Pricing

Free / open source

$0

  • Detects errors and potential problems in JavaScript
  • Browser and command-line use
  • CI integration (e.g. Jenkins)

Security

No known vulnerabilities found in the sources reviewed.

What users say

Developers have long praised it as a free, no-fuss JavaScript error checker, though current recommendations skew toward newer tools like ESLint.

“This website is amazing at finding JS errors and possible errors.”
freeCodeCamp forum
“Jshint.com can help with this some.”
Facebook, JS beginners group
Full analysis

Based on ~14 substantive public sources; many other citations merely reference the tool by name.

Free, no-nonsense JS error checker. Fine for quick checks and legacy code; new teams should default to ESLint instead.

Methodology

Based on ~14 substantive public sources; many other citations merely reference the tool by name.

Sources

  1. JSHint, a JavaScript Code Quality Tooljshint.com
    official
  2. JSHint, A Static Code Analysis Tool for JavaScript (GitHub)github.com
    official
  3. JSHint - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
    official
  4. JSHint security pagejshint.com
    security
  5. JSHint vs Scrutinizer - StackSharestackshare.io
    review
  6. freeCodeCamp forum thread on JavaScript toolsforum.freecodecamp.org
    review
  7. Checker JS Tools: A Comparison - daily.devdaily.dev
    review
  8. JSHint - Methods & Tools reviewmethodsandtools.com
    review

Rate this review

Anonymous. You can change your vote.

Loading votes…

Comments

One queue. No nested comments. Give a display name first. Limit: 200 words per comment and 7 comments per day. You can edit or delete yours.

Save a name to write a comment.

0 / 200 words

No comments yet.