SproutCore Blog

This is very exciting. Following on GitHub & anxiously waiting for the demo video to finish converting. However, doesn't this go slightly against Jolley's idea[1] that the tools should be free and available to everyone (including Linux and Windows users)? I understand this is not the de-facto tool for SproutCore development, but do you think that making an Interface Builder clone with SproutCore itself is a viable option? It would have a lovely meta-feel to it, like the Rubinius Ruby interpreter being written mostly in Ruby. Neways, kudos for releasing the project. I'm going to try it later when I get home. [1] http://blog.sproutcore.com/post/756343010/the-next-revolution

If they're going to pitch HTML5 as an alternative to Flash (and, implicitly, the iPhoneOS API), then why not let them compete directly with Cocoa Touch apps? Why not offer HTML5 developers a way to take advantage of the App Store's monetization and discoverability? Apple already provides some amazing documentation and tutorials for making offline-capable mobile web apps, but they're still treated by Apple as the bastard cousins of "real" iPhone apps. They should buy or provide an officially-supported analogue to a tool like PhoneGap[1] or Titanium[2], allowing HTML5 apps to appear in the App Store, and perhaps provide an Apple-supported framework such as their mysterious PastryKit[3] or contribute to SproutCore[4], giving HTML5 developers better tools to conform to Apple's HIG. HTML5 apps built on open standards should be on an equal footing with apps built in Cocoa Touch. That would be walking the walk. [1] http://phonegap.com/ [2] http://www.appcelerator.com/ [3] http://daringfireball.net/2009/12/pastrykit [4] http://blog.sproutcore.com/post/531215199/introducing-sproutcore-touch EDIT: "officially-supported analogue" EDIT: footnotes

> ... as the year progresses, hope to compare favorably > to Backbone's impressive list. I'm very much looking forward to seeing them. The more different takes on JS-heavy apps the better. I'm about to crash, but would you mind expanding on what you've written here -- "rewritten from the ground up", and so on -- in relation to earlier posts like this one: http://blog.sproutcore.com/sproutcore-amber-a-report-by-yehuda/ ... which describe what I've always understood to be the heart of Ember as an iteration on the core SproutCore internals. Does that blog post no longer describe what ended up happening to Project Amber?

See http://blog.sproutcore.com/changes-to-sproutcore/ for more information on the future of SC1.

We are still using the 1.x branch of Sproutcore. The widgets are really useful. Your apps will not be very different if you use them with the same theme every time but I think it's ok for a demo to show customers during the Problem Interview phase. I agree that the state model is a bit overly complex but if you go past the learning curve it can work well. Also there are ways to kind of bypass it and use an approach more similar to what Backbone/Spine does. There is a recent blog post by the SC team that shows you you can do that with 2.0 branch: http://blog.sproutcore.com/sproutcore-2-and-ajax/

Having contributed to a number of open source projects in the past, I definitely feel the pain. In order to help people get up to speed with SproutCore, we just released a four-part screencast and guide for contributing to the various parts of the framework. http://blog.sproutcore.com/post/5166266734/dispatch-from-the-edge-cont…

Videos at http://blog.sproutcore.com/post/4214558845/catch-up-on-the-sf-meetup may give a better perspective

There are now two ways to design SproutCore applications: Greenhouse and now SCXIB. Greenhouse is exactly what you described--an entirely SproutCore-based interface builder[1]. We created SCXIB to give developers more choice. [1] http://blog.sproutcore.com/post/535950751/introducing-greenhouse

Fairly old news by internet standards, check out the official announcement on the SproutCore blog. http://blog.sproutcore.com/post/756343010/the-next-revolution

That said, Chrome is ridiculously fast at loading scripts. In absolute time, Chrome took an average of 12 milliseconds to load jQuery in the baseline test. The next closest was WebKit with 36 milliseconds. In the “string” test, Chrome takes about 50 msec compared to WebKit’s 45 msec. http://blog.sproutcore.com/post/272853740/cut-your-javascript-load-tim…