[shangxiao]

Nice, I like what you're trying to do, but things like

"Backbone.js: The most popular JS client-site framework"

worry me. Most people I talk to avoid Backbone nowdays in favour of the other popular frameworks.

Also: some descriptions appear to be lacking/missing & you definitely should mention Grunt under "Helpers". At least it's a GH repo and I assume you'll accept PR's? ;)

[joepour]

What are the reasons these people cite for not using Backbone?

[acjohnson55]

As someone who lives and breathes Backbone at the moment, I think its biggest problem is that the framework itself provides not nearly enough guidance to write maintainable and testable code, nor does its documentation. It's not nearly clear how to start your app in a sensible way, where to put stateful non-view, non-model logic, and how the pieces should all communicate. So, you start cobbling your Backbone app together, making architectural decisions as best you can, and then months later, you realize you've created an unmaintainable mess. I've had this experience coming into two large projects so far.

I'm sure everyone's second Backbone app looks a lot better than their first, but it's still an underdesigned framework, IMO. I think Marionette does a lot of good in terms of adding those missing structures and best practices, though. And I'm also intrigued by the idea of replacing views with React components.

[k__]

Last month I was on a JS-Meetup and there were still many companies using backbone.

I read about the problems it has, but most of the devs just love it for being small and easy to use, which isn't the case with angular.

[ahoge]

The most popular one right now is probably Angular.

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=angularjs%2Cbackbonej...

[nailer]

As anther poster mentioned, search may not be an indication of popularity.

Personally, I've used Backbone, Angular and now Ractive, and I spent at least 10x the time Googling when using Angular.

[elwell]

Angular docs aren't that bad. No, they don't even exist.

[daliusd]

Actually jQuery or is it not framework anymore?

[wwweston]

It never was a framework; it was a better API for the DOM + some various other browser APIs -- so much better, in fact, you can get a near-framework-like productivity boost using it.

(At least at first, before it starts to matter that it's no help in terms of organizing a larger application. :)

[ahoge]

jQuery is a library for things like DOM manipulation, AJAX, animation, and events.

Ember and Backbone depend on jQuery, for example.

[shangxiao]

Agreed, jQuery is more of a toolkit that complements frameworks

[e28eta]

Would you feel better knowing that statement dates from at least August 2012?