I'm a user of Backbone, Coffeescript across several projects - and generally a fan of your work. However, your comment makes me feel like you are missing what y

I'm a user of Backbone, Coffeescript across several projects - and generally a fan of your work. However, your comment makes me feel like you are missing what your users are saying and falling back on your opinions about code vs considering the actual utility of the library. You can't say "we're talking about the style in which you think", and then say "the UI is your business", and then be disheartened when developers handle the UI with a library like knockout.js. I write apps to provide a user experience and backbone only provides a conceptual model for a portion of this (specifically the model, collection / syncing). Its extremely clean and elegant. However, backbone does not provide an elegant conceptual model for the UI/DOM. Using declarative bindings and JS generated templates is just fine from a coding point of view (I've built a few apps this way), but frankly its not a very powerful mental model - nor is it necessary consistent with the design patterns in backbone that make it shine. I'll tell you the conceptual model of using a view model to control html templates is more empowering. I don't like the syntax and a lot of things about Knockout - however to me knockout is a nice abstraction on top of jquery event bindings, much like Backbone.sync is a nice abstraction on top of $.ajax.