[tofumatt]

That's really good to hear.

I think you're right about it being like Google's Web Starter Kit. The WSK feels a bit more sparse and less idiomatic than recroom, but it's definitely in the same vein. I haven't checked it out since it was announced a few months back though, so maybe it's grown since then.

I'd love to see people do that to recroom -- add what they think is missing. Pull requests are definitely welcome. My aim is to take the headache out of decisions like "Which framework/tool do I use?" so you can get to writing code if, like me, you don't really care which tool you use as long as it works well.

[xfalcox]

Yeah, exactly this!

On the front end part, it's a real pain to choose a tool over another, since there so many.

I'll be evaluating recroom this week, and will integrate it to my internal tools.

A question: something that I think is really broken, is how to integrate bower (or something like it) in the weapp. This is something that WSK left away, but you will always need.

[dwoot]

WSK left it out on purpose because it doesn't want to dictate how you manage dependencies or module loading.

I don't use Bower. I build AngularJS applications and I prefer CommonJS over AMD, where I use Browserify for Node-like requires. Browserify allows me to use npm modules on the client-side as well, which eliminates my use of Bower completely.

[fwenzel]

recroom uses bower for package management at this point. Like many other parts of the picture, the "market" surrounding package management is in flux (there's also npm, for instance), so we'll monitor what's going on there. But for now, bower seems like a great choice for developers.

Also, it enables the modular aspect of recroom, that you can add/replace pieces you want, so package management is definitely vital.