3 ms·

I don't really know why everybody is crazy about Backbone, when Qooxdoo (http://qooxdoo.org/ http://qooxdoo.org/) it's a lot better than it. You don't even have

by ttty 14y ago

I don't really know why everybody is crazy about Backbone, when Qooxdoo (http://qooxdoo.org/ http://qooxdoo.org/) it's a lot better than it. You don't even have to know/touch html/css. You also have an automated generated page (that contains all of your js files or 1 big file if is min), OOP classes 'like' in Java, and full UI library.

atomical 14y ago
> You don't even have to know/touch html/css. Most people here know and prefer html/css to magic. > You also have an automated generated page (that contains all of your js files or 1 big file if is min) Easy with Rails. A lot of backbone apps are running on rails.
- sycren 14y ago
  I see lots of backbone app tutorials with Sinatra, would you suggest that Rails is better?
  - atomical 14y ago
    I don't know whether it's better or not. But I think Rails is good enough and has a lot of advanced functionality.
- ttty 14y ago
  Well, why in the world you would want to do the same thing 2 or more and to check in every single browser to know it's pixel perfect? This is the HTM+CSS way. In Qooxdoo, it's pixel perfect in every browser, that's the difference. If you make a view for a component with HTML+CSS you should take care of each browser. Ps. I really think it's a bad idea coupling your client side to the server side. Imagine you want to go to node.js someday..?
dasil003 14y ago
There are a lot of different ways to do Javascript and people are very opinionated. Not every client-rich website is a single page app, and the types of operations from familiar CRUD manipulation to complex workflows. In the wild people often have existing code bases. Backbone serves all these interests by providing only a very minimal framework for model/view binding. How you structure the app and what supporting libraries you use are completely up to you. It also makes it very easy to port existing code into Backbone which is quite a strong evolutionary trait for a javascript framework these days. Long term I think Backbone will lose the popularity contest to richer solutions, but similar to HTTP and the web itself, sometimes less is more.

by ttty 14y ago

atomical 14y ago

> You don't even have to know/touch html/css. Most people here know and prefer html/css to magic. > You also have an automated generated page (that contains all of your js files or 1 big file if is min) Easy with Rails. A lot of backbone apps are running on rails.

sycren 14y ago
I see lots of backbone app tutorials with Sinatra, would you suggest that Rails is better?
- atomical 14y ago
  I don't know whether it's better or not. But I think Rails is good enough and has a lot of advanced functionality.
ttty 14y ago
Well, why in the world you would want to do the same thing 2 or more and to check in every single browser to know it's pixel perfect? This is the HTM+CSS way. In Qooxdoo, it's pixel perfect in every browser, that's the difference. If you make a view for a component with HTML+CSS you should take care of each browser. Ps. I really think it's a bad idea coupling your client side to the server side. Imagine you want to go to node.js someday..?

dasil003 14y ago

There are a lot of different ways to do Javascript and people are very opinionated. Not every client-rich website is a single page app, and the types of operations from familiar CRUD manipulation to complex workflows. In the wild people often have existing code bases. Backbone serves all these interests by providing only a very minimal framework for model/view binding. How you structure the app and what supporting libraries you use are completely up to you. It also makes it very easy to port existing code into Backbone which is quite a strong evolutionary trait for a javascript framework these days. Long term I think Backbone will lose the popularity contest to richer solutions, but similar to HTTP and the web itself, sometimes less is more.