Ember.JS was actually the last framework I researched. I went through Backbone, Knockout, Angular, Batman, Enyo, JavascriptMVC, and some others...
Meteor, Derby, SocketStream and the like, are the forward-looking "Next-Gen" hipsters, but they are not comparable to EmberJS, for many reasons. For one, they are all in the "Node.js" family, in that they "require" it as the back-end - so it has no relevance in a discussion on potential web2py front-ends. Meteor, from what I hear, accesses the database from the client "exclusively", and only supports MongoDB (which is not a relational database...). And all these are based exclusively on bi-directional communication channels - with an emphasis on WebSockets. I think Meteor runs exclusively on WebSockets, so it requires it's support, which is still problematic for the open-web, nowadays. SocketStream has fall-backs, I think Derby might have it as well - but relying on real-rime channels exclusively is a mistake (at leas for now...) - The fall-backs incur additional latencies and complexities - and WebSockets deployment is more difficult, even when it works. I think even for the future, WebSockets will not replace HTTP entirely - it is an added-feature of the web, used only when it's really needed. Here is a good talk about it: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Introduction-WebSocket Also, none of the above frameworks have nearly as full of a full-stack feature-set as Ember.js As for Angular, I totally get the enthusiasm, I was enthusiastic as hell about it for a while - it is a glimpse of the future of HTML. The documentation for it, is probably better then for Ember - for now - But I predict that will change in the very near future. But I still think that Ember is the better-deal, especially for web2py users, because it is so familiar in it's structure and feature-set. I'm not sure how Angular does against EmberData, if it has anything remotely like that... And I'm curious how Angular's Router compares with Ember's one - I predict that they are pretty similar, but that Ember's is better. I am also not sure how Angular would behave on a Mobile... Both frameworks are relatively comparable in terms of size (I think Ember might be "fatter"), but this is not what worries me - I think the loading-time is less important than performance in general usage - and there, I would wonder how an a phone would deal with complex HTML-compilation and all that constant object-model-traversal for dirty-checking... I predict that it would be slower in complex apps in Angulat on a phone then in Ember on the same phone - but it's just a hunch at the moment... Also, as Ember's templates can be compiled on a server, this could have a benefit over Angular's templates, when it comes to Mobile... -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
