How funny, I'm working on Vertebrae.js, a JavaScript MVC framework.
I was hoping to release lumbar.js later this week, it's a Javascript MVC framework.
Spine -- A lightweight framework for building JavaScript web applications
41–50 of 50 posts
Re: Spine -- A lightweight framework for building JavaScript web applications
#42Seems neat, but it would have been nice to differentiate itself from backbone a little more upfront. The sites even look similar. The key architectural difference seems to be that the ui is updated before the server responds, which is great in a single user situation, but can get pretty inconsistant once you're in a multi user app. I do have to say that I like the patterns section at the end, it's always good to see…
Seems neat, but it would have been nice to differentiate itself from backbone a little more upfront. The sites even look similar.
Re: Spine -- A lightweight framework for building JavaScript web applications
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Backbone doesn't become any less great because a similar project has appeared. If we are to believe the claims of the creator, Spine is fundamentally different from Backbone, so I dont think a fork would have sufficed.
I disagree - The more people work with something, the more it can be refined. If you read through the Issues page on Github for Backbone, there are 100s of comments, suggestions and bug fixes, all helping to improve the code and make a better framework. By introducing a too-similar competitor, (in general, not necessarily Spine) you risk fragmenting the above, which leads to many okay projects, not one great projects…
The point I was making was that Spine isn't a refinement. It may look the same on the surface, but it has some very different ideas about what a Controller is, amongst other concepts.
It's unreasonable to suggest that anyone who has an idea for a project simply abandon it because someone's already working on something similar. It's also unreasonable to suggest that if they do end up writing something really cool that touches on a few concepts of an existing project, that they should keep it to themselves.
Re: Spine -- A lightweight framework for building JavaScript web applications
#44The number of js frameworks popping up is kind of crazy. Clearly tons of overlap between them all. It kind of makes me want to not choose one and wait for tech natural selection to whittle the options down and hopefully along the way the best elements of each are demonstrated and incorporated into the few winners.
To a large degree that's what Ender.js is trying to do. Whether it'll succeed or not remains to be seen.
I just don't see Ender.js pulling it off. Mostly it is the use of klass that puts me off. I much prefer the pure prototypal style of backbone.
Re: Spine -- A lightweight framework for building JavaScript web applications
#45The only thing Spine seems to have really tackled is "Collection/Model synchronization" which in my opinion should have just been built as an extension to backbone.
Copying the website element for element and 90% of the design paradigm from backbone.js would have been semi-acceptable to me if the author elaborated more on the comparison between backbone in his FAQ.
"Lastly, Spine is much simpler and half the size, go and check out the source."
"Much simpler" seems like a huge call to make and it has been nice to see Jeremy refute all claims by spine.js thus far.
Edit: Also I don't think Backbone.js should receive any negative points for naming conventions. MVC has such a diluted definition that it barely matters how a framework chooses to implement it.
Re: Spine -- A lightweight framework for building JavaScript web applications
#46Great for making UI. Still a lot of work to do all the crappy "extends" stuff, but still not bad.
Re: Spine -- A lightweight framework for building JavaScript web applications
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope -- someone just sent me the link this morning, and it was interesting to poke around the internals.
It's to your great credit that you promote and engage openly with the "competition." FWIW, CoffeeScript + Backbone/Underscore/Docco is, in my opinion, the most exciting thing to happen to JavaScript since the advent of major DOM libraries, and possibly since before then.
+1 to that.
Re: Spine -- A lightweight framework for building JavaScript web applications
#48Seems neat, but it would have been nice to differentiate itself from backbone a little more upfront. The sites even look similar. The key architectural difference seems to be that the ui is updated before the server responds, which is great in a single user situation, but can get pretty inconsistant once you're in a multi user app. I do have to say that I like the patterns section at the end, it's always good to see…
Seems neat, but it would have been nice to differentiate itself from backbone a little more upfront. The sites even look similar. I agree. For a moment I thought it was a parody.
So did I! I thought it was a spoof of backbone although I couldn't really understand what the reason for the parody was, so I kept on reading to see what it was all about.
Even the name suggests it is a backbone "clone".
Edit: Upon reading more about it, it sounds like a really nice framework. A shame it is branded so similarly to backbone which is bound to result in people fighting about which is better, spine or backbone, instead of seeing it for its own merits.
Re: Spine -- A lightweight framework for building JavaScript web applications
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems neat, but it would have been nice to differentiate itself from backbone a little more upfront. The sites even look similar. I agree. For a moment I thought it was a parody.
So did I! I thought it was a spoof of backbone although I couldn't really understand what the reason for the parody was, so I kept on reading to see what it was all about. Even the name suggests it is a backbone "clone". Edit: Upon reading more about it, it sounds like a really nice framework. A shame it is branded so similarly to backbone which is bound to result in people fighting about which is better, spine or ba…
Yeah, The name makes it fell kinda like those "php on tracks" rails spin-offs.
But it's definitely on my list of nice things to try.
Re: Spine -- A lightweight framework for building JavaScript web applications
#50> Since Spine doesn't use constructor functions, due to limitations with prototypal inheritance, classes are instantiated with inst(). Can someone explain this to me? I've been using prototypal inheritance through Closure's goog.inherits() and never had any problem using regular object constructors.
Maybe it's referring specifically to the "new" keyword that can cause issues if left out when creating instances.
If you look at the code, Spine uses Object.create(this.prototype) for init.
This article is a great explanation on issues with prototypal inheritance http://howtonode.org/prototypical-inheritance