Develop Reference

SproutCore vs. Cappuccino

Aside from the language differences Javascript vs. Objective-J what benefits does Cappuccino provide over SproutCore and vice-versa in your experiences?
In terms of a long-term forecast, is SproutCore more "supported" than Cappuccino because it is backed by Apple?
I am trying to choose between the two. I am both familiar with JavaScript and Objective-C.

This is an interesting question, and one that has been popping up fairly frequently on various messages groups, twitter, and even IRC. There's a couple of ways to evaluate SproutCore versus Cappuccino, but, perhaps, some of the immediate caparisons that people look at are the following:
1) Their respective feature set
2) Ease of use
3) Community support and documentation
Let's look at the first point -- there respective feature set. By "feature set" there's a couple of ways to look at it. From the number of UI widgets they have; the foundational support to connect things together and communicate with some kind of back-end; the framework's general architectural approach, although not necessarily a "feature", but still important; and, yes, even the language you can use.
Regarding language, I think it's important that you do not dismiss what is being used (JS versus Obj-J). Why? Because of adoption and where you are coming from. SproutCore came from the perspective that JavaScript is indeed the language of the web, so it's what you use to program against the framework. Where JavaScript lacks in language OO completeness (proper object-object inheritance, etc) it makes up for in the framework (e.g. MyApp.Foo = SC.Object.extend({...})). Cappuccino comes in from a different angle. They use Obj-J as a primary language enhancement to JS in order to inject language features that JS is missing; this instead of injecting those language features directly into the framework (Cappuccino) itself. Of course, as the folks over at Cappuccino have noted before, you can still use JS to program against Cappuccino proper, but, then, you miss out on what Obj-J provides. Note to the Cappuccino community: Please correct me if I'm wrong :-). Finally, if you're someone who is already familiar with Obj-C then Obj-J may be more your cup of tea. Hey, even Sony is apparently now jumping on the whole Obj-C bandwagon to develop against their mobile platform :-P.
Looking at the architecture of the two frameworks, they both looked at Apple's Cocoa framework for guidance/inspiration in one form or another. Cappuccino took Cocoa fully to heart and basically ported Cocoas API. Again, if you're coming from developing apps in Apple using Cocoa then you're probably going to feel right at home. SproutCore on the other hand took inspiration from Cocoa where it felt right. As for pure architecture, they both follow MVC, they both make use of Cocoa-style bindings, they both have a data store mechanism, and they both have their own respective style of rendering and composing UI widgets/views.
The rendering of views is, to me, a particular area of importance. Both frameworks have some level abstraction in order to remove you from directly dealing with CSS and HTML even though at the end of the day they have to render to what the web browser ultimately understands.
On the Cappuccino side, they completely abstract away CSS and HTML from you. Instead, you use the framework's various rendering primitives to "draw" your views. Because of this level of abstraction, Cappuccino can make use of the best rendering approach available instead of coupling you, to some degree, with CSS and HTML.
As for SproutCore, you are rendering closer to the "metal" so to speak. When doing a pure rendering of a view, you make use of a rendering context object that provides a certain degree of abstraction, but, ultimately, you are directly injecting HTML and adding class names to apply CSS. Even after your view has been rendered and you want to manipulate certain parts of the view based on an event, you can directly access to the DOM elements and manipulate their properties. Depending on where you are coming from this may seem good or bad. Good for those who are used to working with CSS and HTML and like the more direct control over how the views are rendered and styled. Bad if you want to generically render a view in order to make use of the best render approach based on what the browser allows (HTML/CSS, SVG, HTML5 canvas, etc). But, note, there are future plans to make SproutCore have a more abstract rendering approach but still allow you to directly work with HTML and CSS if you so choose. So you'll eventually get the best of both worlds.
Now, as for the stock UI widgets/views the two frameworks come with -- they both have a lot right out of the box in order to get you going. Buttons, labels, lists, segmented views, radio buttons, scrollers, etc -- they're all there. Therefore, it's safe to say you're fine in both camps.
Going all the way back, let's now discuss the ease of use. To me, ease of use is based on you own personal experience working with JavaScript, HTML, Obj-C, Cocoa, other MVC frameworks, documentation, and community support. If you've never worked with Cocoa, or never built a decktop- or iPad-like app, then it's fair to say you're going to have a bit of a learning curve no matter what framework you choose. That being said, what you don't know and want to learn can be acquired through each framework's respective community and docs. Both have active communities in one for or another, so you won't be left out in the cold if you get stuck somewhere. As for docs, Cappuccino, admittedly, has the upper hand. The docs for SproutCore are lacking, but the code base is at least fully commented. The SproutCore community is fully aware of the docs needing to be updated, and it is currently something that is being dealt with, so keep checking.
Finally, you mentioned the long-term forecast for the two frameworks. It's public knowledge that Motorola bought the Cappuccino framework, so you certainly have a big company backing its growth and longevity, or at least it seems like that way for now. As for Apple and SproutCore, I personally can't speak for them, but Apple does not own the framework. There are many companies and various individuals that all use and contribute back to the framework in some way. That might give some people and companies pause or discomfort for those who are looking at SproutCore due to the more organic nature of the framework's development, but I don't see that as a problem. My feeling is that both frameworks will be around for a long time, especially now that more are looking at developing next generation desktop and iPad apps using open source frameworks. And, hey, competition between the frameworks is good -- keeps everyone on their respective toes :-).
Hope this information helps you out with your decision!
Cheers,
Mike

I'd like to touch on the comments made about objective-j Michael.
You're not going to lose anything if you drop down to JavaScript instead of objective-j. In all actuality the distinction is kind of difficult to make, especially in cases where we have toll-free bridged classes (more on that in a bit).
Objective-j is really just a thin wrapper over js. It provides classical inheritance something that has traditionally been implemented as a language feature, which sproutcore implements as a framework feature, it also provides code importing, accessor generation, static scoping, and support for messaging nil.
Objective-j instance variables are accessible via the traditional dot syntax if you want... I like to think of it like this: once you start writing a method, you're mostly writing JavaScript. That is, loops, variables, functions, closures, etc are all just javascript. You're not losing anything by dropping down, that's exactly how the language is designed.
We take it a step further by "toll-free bridging" some of our classes CPDate, CPArray, CPException, CPString and perhaps more that I can't recall. Toll free bridging just means a CPArray IS a native js array, and a native js array is a CPArray, so you can use methods and functions of both world interchangeably.
So for example would could do:
var foo = [];
[foo addObject:"bar"];
foo.push("2nd push");
var value = foo[0];
var value2 = [foo objectAtIndex:0];
alert(value === value2); //true
As you can see I'm using objective-j syntax and js syntax together... You can imagine the power if this.
The final thing I want to put out ther, just to make sure there is no confusion: objective-j gets parsed in the browser. It doesn't need to be compiled before hand (although we provide compilation tools for when you're ready to deploy your app).
I think some people are needlessly put off by objective-j as if it's some monstrous beast that will take time to learn, and while objective-j adds a lot of great features to js, to actually learn them won't really take you the better part of a day if you're already familiar with object oriented programming, and obviously if you're coming from cocoa you'll be able to jump right in.

I wrote a blog article exactly about "cappuccino vs. sproutcore". It is not a technical comparison but compares other interesting data.
http://elii.info/2010/11/cappuccino-vs-sproutcore/

From the Cappuccino website:
"On the other end of the existing frameworks are technologies like SproutCore. While SproutCore set out with similar goals to Cappuccino, it takes a distincly different approach. It still relies on HTML, CSS, JavaScript, Prototype, and an entirely new and unique set of APIs. It also requires special development software and a cumbersome compilation step. We think this is the wrong approach.
With Cappuccino, you don't need to know HTML. You'll never write a line of CSS. You don't ever have interact with DOM. We only ask developers to learn one technology, Objective-J, and one set of APIs. Plus, these technologies are implementations of well known and well understood existing ones. Developers can leverage decades of collective experience to really accelerate the pace of building rich web applications."
So it seems that Cappuccino does not have/need any build tools, and completely abstracts the browser away from the developer. Whereas in Sproutcore you get build tools (a development server, for example) and the developer should be somewhat aware of what DOM is.

Michael Cohens answer pretty much covered everything since it was extremely detailed.
I have been struggling with a decision for the past 3 weeks. I have read everything there is out on the web about both frameworks and I have written a lot of source samples with both and still cannot make a decision. The following issues have me jumping from one framework to the other and keep making my decision tougher.
Sproutcore has a better data store api than the one cappuccino has.
Sproutcore makes use of bindings better than cappuccino currently does. Cappuccino does also have kvc/kvo support but bindings are not totally there yet. For example in sproutcore you can implement incremental loading with bindings and ArrayController very easily where on the other hand in cappuccino its not as straightforward. Of course cappuccino offers the CPTableView DataStore api which is pretty clean and can achieve similar results just not with bindings. Its what cocoa did before core data. Bindings are constantly being worked on in cappuccino though.
Cappuccino has a better view api according to my personal taste. Although I am used to developing html and the DOM I much prefer the idea of abstracting the DOM completely away and getting rid of css.
One issue that is really important to me is the lack of a good TableView in sproutcore. Currently SC.TableView is in alpha and it is not performant at all. I dont know of a timeline for the tableview in sproutcore. I tried asking on the irc sproutcore channel but got no satisfying answer. Cappuccino on the other hand has a great and very optimized table view.
I have found more real world applications written on cappuccino than on sproutcore. There is also a pretty nice full blown application that is provided by cappuccino as a source sample and is very helpful. Check out http://githubissues.heroku.com/.
Despite the fact that I have no experience in objective-c and I much prefer the pure js syntax I will probably go with cappuccino on my current project and hope sproutcore comes out with a better table view in the future.

The most similar javascript framework to Silverlight

I like Silverlight because of the following, in brief:
-declarative GUI language (XAML)
-data and command binding
-GUI designer
-MVVM pattern
-strong typed language.
But Silverlight isn't available everywhere. I'd like to investigate alternatives which doesn't involve any browser plugin. Basically javascript frameworks with a compiler that compiles from a strong typed language (mostly JAVA) to javascript.
Basically I want to develop "Silverlight apps" without Silverlight.
I know that SL grade graphics and animation is impossible because of the limitations of HTML. But that is not an issue. The point is not about features but development style.
One exception is that the resulting UI should be customizable. Not just colors and fonts, but layout and structure. So not all the applications look the same.
I have found two frameworks so far(I've sorted out at least 5):
-ZK - seams the best so far
-GWT with UIBinder (new in GWT 2.0), but UIBinder isn't supported in any designer.
So...
-Is this a valid question at all? (I hope so :))
-If it is, which is the best in your opinion? Not necessarily from the two above.

I don't think there are really any that completely match Silverlight, but I'd say besides highly graphical apps, you can do almost everything with just JS. You may have to mix and match libraries or develop your own, but here's a few from the top of my head that can do some of what you ask about:
You can use <canvas> tag or SVG to do graphics, for this you can use f.ex. Raphael and dojox.gfx
For UI widgets, there are various libraries like Dojo, Ext JS, SproutCore
Ext JS has a UI designer tool
Dojo's dijit templates and Ext JS's components have sort-of data binding'ish features (maybe others too but these I'm familiar with)
Most libraries (incl. the ones I've mentioned) should have capabilities for animating UI elements smoothly
As for static typing stuff, GWT is probably your best bet since you actually use Java to write it. Besides that there isn't much you can do - personally I'd recommend (ab)using the JS language's features for what they were meant for, and not attempting to emulate something it is not.
It may take some getting used to since JavaScript is not Java or C#, but I would say that you can develop RIA's very well with it. There are some things you may need to work around a bit due to limitations, but most things are doable and work well in modern browsers.

Advantages of Ample SDK framework

Browsing the Internet, I found the new Ample SDK JavaScript framework. From their about section:
Ample SDK is a standard-based cross-browser JavaScript GUI Framework for building Rich Internet Applications. It employs XML technologies (such as XUL, SVG or HTML5) for UI layout, CSS for UI style and JavaScript for application logic. It equalizes browsers and brings technologies support to those missing any.
Examples from their website look very promising.
Did anybody try using this framework in real projects? Which are the pros and cons of working with Ample SDK?
I'm mainly interested in your subjective real usage experience, and not in the information already available at their web-site.

Another very subjective opinion from the creator of Ample SDK ;)
Pros:
Standard technologies and APIs make it simpler to take off
Markup-based UI is easy to create and maintain
Good separation of concerns - UI, Logic and Style
Easy to create new UI elements and entire languages
Non-obtrusive - only takes over designated areas on the HTML page
Cons:
Does not aid well development of web-sites (for which jQuery is just enough), it is mainly suitable for client-side apps that run in browser and communicate only data with server.

We've used Ample in one of the components of our Enterprise Application.
Advantages we've experienced:
Programming against well established API's (DOM, Dom Events) led to better code readability, more stable implementation of the end product, no programming against specific browsers.
The development cycle was also reduced by up to 50% of our normal development time.
The ability to create custom namespaces for component markup helped us to created a library of common UIComponents that can easily be changed,modified and used in all our future products
The separation of the concerns of the UIComponents and the Application by creating a custom language itself is one of the big advantages. We now only focus on implementing the business logic instead of skinning components and fixing view related problems. The Q&A cycles we're also much shorter than normally because of the stability of the end product
Disadvantages.
Hardly any. the framework is really stable and so far we did not ran into any problems with Ample.

I used in one project for the moment: http://www.programma.tv/.
As for that experience, I did not use any "UI language" (except XHTML, of course) from the A-SDK, just the core. Also I wrote custom UI language ("channels", "days", "items" and some more elements) and that was really simple in case you know javascript well.
But: think twice before implementing your own UI language (i.e. custom components) - maybe it'll be faster use something from the A-SDK?
Anyway, if you'll ask me to choose one word to summarise my opinion, I'd choose this one: "SIMPLE".

What are the arguments against using a JavaScript Framework for a Web site development company? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Our company builds websites and web applications. We are a small firm and our team of developers are always building the javascript functions from scratch or copying from other websites built by us. Every time I bring to the table the word standardization and using a JS framework like JQuery, Prototype or any other, I am told Frameworks have the three points below as arguments against them:
Mainly for people that don't know enough JS
Frameworks limit Javascript developers
Frameworks bloat the actual development code with a lot of things that are not used.
We don't use enough Javascript in our applications for us to need JS framework
In my mind it seems that Frameworks, give our team a good starting point, documentation, a community and always the option to grow on top of the framework. Could some Framework users elaborate further?
EDIT 1:
Thanks to all of you for your great responses. I really did not think that this was going to be such a hot topic. I am glad I asked the question. I posted another similar question in the following link in case you might think you want to add something. The topic of the new question is CSS related. Thanks.

By your coworkers point of view, .NET and JAVA are for people who don't know enough assembly.
Frameworks exist for a reason. They allow you go focus on the problem instead of dealing with repetitive code. They allow you to be confident (assuming you use well tested frameworks) that certain pieces of your code are reliable and well tested.
If your coworkers are against frameworks, I would seriously consider moving on.

Since no one has mentioned it - a Javascript framework rapidly becomes one more project dependancy, and in general terms, dependencies are bad as they represent points of failure.
As for this:
Mainly for people that don't know
enough JS
Without elaborating, I will say that if one of our team said something like that in my presence, I would try to shrug it off as a joke. If I thought they were being serious, I would probably have to kill them.
And as for this:
Frameworks limit Javascript
developers
That could translate to "Frameworks make it marginally harder to write spaghetti code, and that's what I do best"
Those are not arguments, they are excuses.

Arguments against:
Frameworks prevent you from re-inventing the wheel
Frameworks generally contain well tested code
Frameworks are well supported by the community
Frameworks force you to focus on the business problem you're trying to solve
</sarcasm>
Frameworks may have a license you don't agree/can't work with

A few positives for javascript frameworks (like JQuery).
They provide standardization in ui
elements.
Reduce time to develop complex
interfaces and effects.
Normalize efforts by providing
functions that are already
cross-browser compatible.
Due to efforts in cross
compatibility documentation is more
useful in a framework as you can use
the framework's api as canon
instead of searching for obscure
support for various/proprietary
javascript functions.
Reduced learning curve for new
developers making them productive on
your software quicker.
I completely disagree that a framework limits javascript developers. Quite the opposite actually. Most frameworks provide extensive plug-in mechanisms where the framework can be extended using raw javascript utilizing hooks in the framework itself.

I'll use jQuery as an example, but what I'm saying here could apply to most JavaScript frameworks.
Many frameworks (notably jQuery) are far too monolithic and not modular enough.
While depending on well-tested 3rd party software is often more than justified, "frameworks" tend to give you a lot more functionality than you need at the moment.
In many projects, I very much like the convenience that jQuery gives me for selecting sets of elements (using $(".classname"), for example). But, if I'm not using any significant amount of AJAX, I don't need the AJAX utilities provided by jQuery.
Software should do one thing and do it well, and software written in JavaScript is no exception. Most of the frameworks you refer to try to do everything, resulting in unnecessary complexity.
One place this can bite you is when you're considering upgrading to the next version of the framework. That involves crawling through jQuery's changelogs for backwards-incompatible changes and searching your project for areas where that code is used. This can be quite a nightmare, especially if you don't necessarily have a comprehensive list of which jQuery features you use and which ones you don't.
Also, jQuery (and other frameworks) tends to cause developers to start depending on new features of jQuery without even thinking about it, making it harder to determine which features of jQuery your project uses and which it doesn't.
If you use a utility which does one thing, then you know exactly which features of that utility you're using. There's only one. (If you aren't using that utility at all, it's easy to determine. Such a determination would mean you could safely remove it from your project.)
I'm all for using well-tested 3rd party code. But if it tries to do too much, (that is, if it's a framework rather than a utility), you should probably look for an alternative. If it tries to do too much (like jQuery tries to do too much), then it's got some serious, foundational design flaws that will probably come back to bite you.

I'm surprised no one has already mentioned it:
A lot of web developers default to using JQuery without considering the alternatives
And end up including it on a web page to do a few trivial tasks which could easily be done in pure JavaScript
The result is that users have to wait for the whole library to download and it slows down web browsing
Also:
Some web developers get carried away with the design of web pages, and end up developing unnecessarily complex web pages because of the power of JQuery
Just because JQuery enables you to create scripts with good cross-browser compatibility it doesn't mean that the end result is usable on different devices / interfaces
I'd also argue the cross-browser compatibilty because I've seen instances of webkit not playing well with JQuery
JQuery encourages "fast" scripting - but if you rush it you are likely to have missed something out
Writing in JavaScript from scratch is slower - but I believe that you end up with a more complete solution which more closely matches the users needs
Using JQuery can shift the focus of the web developer to creating web sites which are highly graphical and visually appealing, whereas the focus should be on functionality and usability
JQuery is not a silver bullet for web development
I am biased here because I don't use JQuery, but it is because I haven't found a need for it yet - maybe it's because I focus more on usability and functionality rather than making the user interface look pretty (sorry I know JQuery can do more than that).

An argument against libraries is BROWSER SUPPORT most libraries support only a subset of browsers out there .
Here is an example of BBC rolling out their own instead of using something like jquery .

I liked the answer of pb +
Mainly for people that don't know
enough JS
I believe it is too complicated for them, so they use this excuse. FW allows you to build much more complex applications.
Frameworks limit Javascript developers
bullshit
Frameworks bloat the actual
development code with a lot of things
that are not used.
what is it today extra 100k-200k? especially if you use the CDN versions (at google for instance). And this is assuming you use nothing in the FW.

There are plenty of good reasons to be suspicious of frameworks in general, balanced of course by lots of reasons why they are worthwhile.
I use jquery now, and frankly within an hour of learning it realised that it fits the job so well that if it didn't exist I'd only end up reimplementing something very similar myself, only it wouldn't be as good or as cross platform.
There isn't much bloat there, it's very small and well designed and does nothing at all that stops you writing any javascript you want for specific cases that don't fit your needs.

GWT or DOJO or something else?

I come from the Microsoft world (and I come in peace). I want to rapidly prototype a web app and if it works out, take it live - and I don't want to use ASP.Net.
I am not sure which web application toolkit to use though. Should I use GWT, DOJO...other recommendations? I am open to any server-side language but am looking at RoR, Php or even Java (J2EE to be precise). I am not much of a Javascript/CSS guy so a toolkit that might make it relatively easy on me on those fronts would be preferable.
Also, I am a mac user at home. What IDEs go along with the framework you would recommend?
Any recommendations guys?

If you're open to doing Java, GWT is the way to go. It allows you to have a relatively uniform codebase across client-server, and to only use one language on both.
There are some limitations to doing very off-the-beaten-path AJAXy things (which GWT makes difficult, but not impossible), but it doesn't sound like that's your use case anyway.
GWT will allow you to scale up by using more of its features as your app gets more complex - and your prototype won't be throwaway code.

If you want to write the front and back end in JAVA, and want to do complex ajax type thing, then GWT is a great way to go.
The easiest way to think about it is that building a GWT app is kind of like building a JAVA swing application that hooks into a server. Just like a swing app that uses a server you can make it fat or thin. When you're done it all compiles down into HTML and javascript, and has very good modern browser support (ie6+ ff, opera, safari).
It does abstract all the javascript and HTML away, but if you want it to look good you'll still need to understand CSS.
I think anyone who says that that it ruins MVC or that it's a muddying of client vs server doesn't understand GWT. GWT is a CLIENT side framework. And it is only used on the CLIENT. GWT does provide an RPC mechanism to hook it into JAVA (and other) back ends, but that's just a communication protocol, it doesn't mean that your server code magically becomes your client code. Sure you can write a whole bunch of business rules into your UI if you really wanted to, but you can do this with any framework, so it would be silly to say that GWT is somehow different in that respect.

GWT is a good choice, while if you choose more powerful JavaScript framework based on GWT (e.g. SmartGWT), the compiled stuff is too heavyweight.
Choose direct JavaScript if you need a compact project.

I am a fan of GWT, however I am very familiar with Java. I found it to be intuitive, and surprisingly easy to get good results quickly. If you are to use GWT, then you'll definitely want to use the free, and immensely powerful Eclipse IDE.
One disadvantage of GWT is that it requires Javascript to be supported by the browser, there is no "graceful degradation".

We have evaluate a large list of frameworks and have decide us for Echo2.
You need only to code in Java. Javascript you need only if you want write your own components.
There are no startup performance problems with large projects like GWT.
You can use the full range of Java in your client code because it run on the server. In GWT you can use only very small set of Java classes.
The IDE for Java is Eclipse. This is independent of the used framework.

I'm a fan of jQuery, the chainability of actions, traversals, and commands is really powerful. A good friend of mine is crazy about Mootools, he works at a Java shop FWIW. He mentioned a cool feature of Mootools is that you can specify the functionality you want the framework to include and it will generate the entire library on a single line in a file that you can include on your page to minimize the weight of the framework (pretty cool feature). Really it just depends on what you are most comfortable with. jQuery has great tutorials, is super fast, and can be used along with other javascript frameworks.

Not related to GWT, but have you considered other backends that GWT could work nicely with?
Grails is one backend that ties quite nicely with GWT.

Personally, I would avoid server-side frameworks that try to embed or hide the client-side framework. I'm sure that GWT is great for getting something going quickly, and is probably fine for certain kinds of applications, but you'll probably run into lots of problems "on the edges" for more complex applications. Decoupling the client framework from the server-side framework avoids those problems.