| >How is that plain? Knockout is not commonplace. Knockout is a common data binding library in the JS world. It does one thing and only one thing very well - databinding. Sure it might have (little) features here and there that allow you to do other things, but it's core feature is data binding. >They're just alternatives. One is Microsoft's, one Google's. They're both client-side frameworks. No, they're not. Knockout a is a data binding library. One of several Angular's offerings is data binding. >..and managed to convince the client to use something that everyone else wasn't familiar with, only you. That's an assumption. I never said that nobody knew it except me. Sorry if it wasn't clear from my original post, but everyone in my company knows all the major frameworks - Angular, Knockout, Ember, etc. etc. We never get religious over this stuff and always use what's best for the project in hand. >The arguments against it are the same as the one's you'd use against knockoutjs. You completely missed my point - Angular is X+Y+Z, my suggestion is to use a framework for X, if you need mostly just X for your project. Replace X with any framework you want, including Knockout. It does not make sense to use a framework that offers X+Y+Z when you need just X or Y. That's my point. I'm sorry you feel offended. Just to be clear - I'm not advocating any framework by name, including knockout in particular, I just mentioned it because I was documenting my use-case in my original post. Use what suits the best for your project and not because you read about it on HN/Slashdot/etc. Please calm down your tone and don't get religious about this stuff. Cheers. |