4 ms·
I completely disagree about Backbone. Sure, what Backbone does can be understood in about an hour, but since it isn't very opinionated and since it doesn't do v
by 3pt14159 12y ago
I completely disagree about Backbone. Sure, what Backbone does can be understood in about an hour, but since it isn't very opinionated and since it doesn't do very much for you, you end up having to figure out every single codebase you step into. Yes, Ember is annoying when it isn't working. I once spend four days (!!) tracking down why something wasn't working when I was first learning Ember, but I can look at any Ember code base and understand it in under an hour whereas with Backbone and Angular I see people implementing their own (often broken) patterns and solutions.
- drinchev 12y agoI think your argument benefits my opinion. I'm using Backbone exactly for the reason that you state you've been. I don't want to put a client ( I work as a freelancer ) in the position to look for someone that knows framework "A" or "B". Also I'm pretty sure "A" or "B" will soon be obsolete and the successor will need to change the whole codebase, instead of improving it. I'm not talking about Ember, actually I'm also using it, but when it happens to go for scalable project I would prefer Backbone, because of team members learning curve and potential developers availability.
- LunaSea 12y agoI think he's arguing that Backbone.js in itself is fine but since it doesn't do much you have to add plugins or write your own implementation of the missing parts. The issue with that is that the learning curve is now higher because the chances that a developer knows those missing parts that you added or coded is increasingly small. Btw, I'm a heavy Backbone.js user so I still think it's a better option compared to other MVC flavours but I do have the problem that a lot of things related to data binding and UI animations is custom built and have the issue described above.