4 ms·

> If you're just getting started with frameworks, I'd recommend Backbone. Backbone only is not enough to do any serious kind of work today.One always end up w

by aikah 12y ago

> If you're just getting started with frameworks, I'd recommend Backbone. Backbone only is not enough to do any serious kind of work today.One always end up with tons of plugins making it as complicated as EmberJS or AngularJS. There is no serious view layer,so one has to use React,Vue,or Ractive. The router sucks,frankly,so one has to replace it. The model layer doesnt handle relationships between model,so one ends up using something else... There is nothing good in Backbone today frankly.It was one of the first successfull "clientside" framework ,yet refused to evolve(like underscore or coffeescript today),refused to incorporate good ideas from third parties that would have made it still relevant today. There is no future in Backbone.Maybe there is still a place for a Backbone like framework that would still be based on jQuery and would incorporate a better view layer. But Backbone itself is dead. I personally prefer AngularJS ,not because of its directives but because I strongly believe in IoC containers over any other way to build and wire objects. But I think EmberJS is as good.

ChrisAntaki 12y ago
> There is nothing good in Backbone today frankly.It was one of the first successfull "clientside" framework AngularJS was released in 2009 [1], whereas Backbone was released a year later in 2010 [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AngularJS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AngularJS [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone.js http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone.js
- aikah 12y ago
  > AngularJS was released in 2009 [1], whereas Backbone was released a year later in 2010 [2]. Sure,that's why i said > It was one of the first successfull "clientside" framework Did you miss the word successfull or what? furthermore old angularjs looked more like Adobe Spry than current AngularJS,while Backbone hardly evolved(which is not good of course).
  - ChrisAntaki 12y ago
    > while Backbone hardly evolved(which is not good of course) Backbone is a much simpler library than Angular. There's less of a need for it to evolve, since it's meant to be extended on a per project basis.
    - aikah 12y ago
      I disagree totally.

by aikah 12y ago

ChrisAntaki 12y ago

> There is nothing good in Backbone today frankly.It was one of the first successfull "clientside" framework AngularJS was released in 2009 [1], whereas Backbone was released a year later in 2010 [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AngularJS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AngularJS [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone.js http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone.js

aikah 12y ago
> AngularJS was released in 2009 [1], whereas Backbone was released a year later in 2010 [2]. Sure,that's why i said > It was one of the first successfull "clientside" framework Did you miss the word successfull or what? furthermore old angularjs looked more like Adobe Spry than current AngularJS,while Backbone hardly evolved(which is not good of course).
- ChrisAntaki 12y ago
  > while Backbone hardly evolved(which is not good of course) Backbone is a much simpler library than Angular. There's less of a need for it to evolve, since it's meant to be extended on a per project basis.
  - aikah 12y ago
    I disagree totally.