Every QA engineer goes through different stages of learning, testing and exploring new tools. Automation frameworks are a big part of that journey. They influence not only how we write tests, but also how we think about testing, how fast we work and how clearly we understand the code in front of us. Over the years, I’ve moved across several frameworks, each with its own strengths and challenges.
I started with Selenium using Java, then moved to Cypress with JavaScript and later to Playwright with TypeScript. This path gave me a better view of how these tools compare in real projects. And today, when I revisited a Java-based project, I realized how much the testing landscape has changed and how much the tools we use can shape our entire workflow.
🧭 From Selenium with Java to Modern JS/TS Frameworks
Like many QA engineers, Selenium with Java was my entry point into test automation. Selenium is powerful, stable and widely used, but it often requires a lot of setup, boilerplate and complex structure. When you are new it feels like learning two things at once: the Java language and Selenium’s own way of working.
Switching to Cypress and later Playwright felt like stepping into a different world. Everything was simpler to read, easier to write and faster to understand. The extra layers of configuration were replaced by clean syntax and built-in tools that helped me focus on the actual testing.
📚 Code Readability: Java vs JS/TS
Going back to a Java project after working with Cypress and Playwright made the difference painfully clear. With Java even simple tests often require:
- multiple classes
- page object files
- long method signatures
- repetitive code
The structure is more formal and less flexible. While this is sometimes useful for very large enterprise systems, it adds friction for everyday testing.
By contrast, Cypress and Playwright feel lighter:
- fewer files
- simpler syntax
- shorter lines of code
- immediate clarity on what a test is doing
Reading a Playwright test is closer to reading English sentences than reading machine instructions. That alone makes debugging and onboarding much faster.
⚙️ Flexibility and Development Speed
If I had to choose one word to describe Playwright, it would be flexible. It gives you:
- automatic waits
- powerful selectors
- clear APIs
- the option to test multiple browsers easily
- great built-in tooling like tracing and codegen
Cypress shares many of these advantages, especially for UI testing, but Playwright feels more complete and more adaptable to different types of projects.
Selenium still works and in some cases, it’s the right choice, but modern frameworks are simply smoother. They remove unnecessary steps and let us focus on writing meaningful tests, not fighting configuration.
🚀 The Modern QA Experience
Working with modern automation frameworks doesn’t just make coding easier, it improves the entire QA experience:
- faster ramp-up time
- cleaner codebase
- fewer headaches caused by waits and flaky tests
- better developer–tester collaboration
- quicker feedback loops
And perhaps most importantly: they help us think more clearly. When the tool isn’t in the way, you can focus on logic, scenarios and user behavior, actually the parts that matter most.
💡 Final Thoughts
Switching from Selenium to Cypress and Playwright showed me how much automation has evolved. Each framework taught me something valuable, but modern tools like Playwright make testing feel natural, readable and efficient. Going back to Java reminded me how far we’ve come and how much easier our work can be when the right framework supports us instead of slowing us down.
If there’s one lesson from this journey, for me it’s this:
Choose the tools that let you think clearly and move fast. In QA, clarity is power.