> "Absolutely right. Ember promises—and, we think, delivers—tremendous value."
No matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true. At a certain point, we have to stop just believing the hype at face value, and start actually evaluating what the piece of software really does with a critical perspective.
Aren't the same guys who are telling you that Ember is simple and easy to use and high-performance and well-designed and ambitious and removes boilerplate and cures cancer and kisses babies ... the same guys who were saying the same things about SproutCore two years ago?
Isn't the data layer still totally unfinished? Didn't a lot of folks just get burned by wildly changing router APIs? Isn't it obvious from what few public production apps there are (after 2+ years) that the results end up sub-par, glitchy and wonky? Why would you want to spend time banging your head against the limitations and poor design choices of an over-marketed experimental framework?
Let them actually finish the damn thing first, then let's talk about "getting started" with it.
> Didn't a lot of folks just get burned by wildly changing router APIs?
"To keep things in perspective, we froze the Ember 1.0 API a mere month ago, when we released the first 1.0 RC. Before that, we were focused on iterating the API based on feedback we received from our early adopters. We believe that our willingness to change the API allowed us to build a better product than our competitors that locked in their first attempts."
> Let them actually finish the damn thing first, then let's talk about "getting started" with it
If you'd actually read the linked post you'd see that the framework recently became effectively finished from an API standpoint. Most of the work post-RC is going to be bug fixes and documentation.
Sure, there are still things to improve in Ember and there isn't a 1.0 release yet. But this is similar to how Backbone and Batman.js (which we also tried) had some quirks in their early days.
Despite some of the drawbacks, we are happy with ember and are using it in production for both a web client and mobile app.
Does everything work flawlessly? No. Has it been useful to us and do we like it? Yes, certainly! Should you use it? Maybe, less adventurous people should probably wait until 1.0.
> "Write dramatically less code."
> "Absolutely right. Ember promises—and, we think, delivers—tremendous value."
No matter how often you say it, doesn't make it true. At a certain point, we have to stop just believing the hype at face value, and start actually evaluating what the piece of software really does with a critical perspective.
Aren't the same guys who are telling you that Ember is simple and easy to use and high-performance and well-designed and ambitious and removes boilerplate and cures cancer and kisses babies ... the same guys who were saying the same things about SproutCore two years ago?
http://web.archive.org/web/20110530004346/http://blog.sprout...
Isn't the data layer still totally unfinished? Didn't a lot of folks just get burned by wildly changing router APIs? Isn't it obvious from what few public production apps there are (after 2+ years) that the results end up sub-par, glitchy and wonky? Why would you want to spend time banging your head against the limitations and poor design choices of an over-marketed experimental framework?
Let them actually finish the damn thing first, then let's talk about "getting started" with it.