Question 1

Spine vs Backbone.js for MVC?

Accepted Answer

Spine is lighter and more readable with under 700 lines of CoffeeScript, while Backbone.js is more established with a larger ecosystem. Spine is better for simplicity and quick mastery, but Backbone may offer more integrations.

Question 2

How to set up Spine with a build tool like Webpack?

Accepted Answer

Spine supports CommonJS modules, so you can integrate it with Webpack by requiring Spine files. However, the documentation favors CoffeeScript tools like Hem, so you might need to adapt configurations for modern setups.

Question 3

Is CoffeeScript required to use Spine?

Accepted Answer

No, Spine can be used with any JavaScript language, but the core is written in CoffeeScript, and tools like Hem are CoffeeScript-specific. The test suite provides non-CoffeeScript examples for reference.

Question 4

What are the performance implications of using Spine?

Accepted Answer

Spine is lightweight and minimal, so it has low overhead, but it lacks advanced optimizations like virtual DOM found in modern frameworks. It's best for small to medium applications where simplicity is key.

Question 5

How to handle routing in Spine applications?

Accepted Answer

Spine doesn't include built-in routing; you'd need to implement it manually or use external libraries. The modular architecture allows easy integration, but this adds complexity compared to frameworks with routing out-of-the-box.

Question 6

Is Spine still actively maintained?

Accepted Answer

Based on the README, contributions are encouraged via GitHub, but the last major updates might be older. Check the repository activity and issue tracker for current status, as the community relies on Google Groups for support.

spine

What is spine?

Overview

Use Cases

Best For

Related Projects

Found a gem we're missing?

Not Ideal For

Pros & Cons

Pros

Cons

Frequently Asked Questions