Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm wondering if someone can give some advice as to which is 'better'. Twitter-bootstrap or JQuery mobile?
Thanks,
-peter
I don't know if "better" is something you can answer since they serve different purposes. Bootstrap is great all-purpose CSS library whereas jQueryMobile is closer to a framework. Meaning jQueryMobile doesn't just make your pages look nice- it gives a lot of mobile oriented features such as- swipe-events, page transitions, allows for single page applications (since it will only show a single div with data-role='page' at a time), AJAX preload and history API, and lots of touch friendly components/widgets. Whereas bootstrap is foremost a CSS library mostly for desktop but works on mobile as well especially since 2.0 comes with media queries built in. Bootstrap will not help you with touch friendly lists, checkboxes, select menu's, etc.
One more thing to point out, jQueryMobile takes your markup and dresses it with all sorts of pretty stuff using JavaScript. Bootstrap has some javascript, but only for optional components, the rest is CSS.
So to answer IMHO- if you're a making a web application that you explicitly plan on using primarily on mobile devices go with jQueryMobile; Anything else go with Bootstrap- it's really quite awesome.
jQuery mobile != twitter bootstrap. Twitter bootstrap is used to create responsive layouts [a single CSS can work on big as well as small screen size]. jQuery mobile is intended for mobile development. So if you develop a site using jQuery mobile won't give a good layout consistency in all desktop browsers.
While I agree that Twitter Bootstrap != jQuery Mobile, you can develop mobile sites with Bootstrap. After spending the last couple months developing a mobile site using jQuery Mobile, my conclusion is this:
The concept behind jQuery Mobile is perfect. The "page" concept integrates very well with server side technologies (ASP.Net MVC in my case). It allows you to develop pages as individual files, rendered mostly on the server, as you're already used to doing and probably desire to do.
However, in its current state, it can get very slow and very buggy if you try to do too much with it. I've run into problem after problem with it on my project.
So I'd say, if your site isn't too complicated (e.g. no swiping, no wizards), then go with jQuery Mobile. Otherwise, think about waiting for the project to mature. It's almost there.
I think the main differences are apparent by how the two projects identify themselves:
Bootstrap:
"Sleek, intuitive, and powerful front-end framework for faster and easier web development."
jQuery Mobile:
"Touch-Optimized Web Framework for Smartphones & Tablets."
Both frameworks are aiming at meeting different needs and accomplishing different things. I've used both of them in separate projects and each of them have strengths and weaknesses, but it would be a disservice to both to directly compare them. It's our job as programmers/designers/engineers to decide the goal for your project and pick the best tool for the job.
It depends on what you are going to do with it. I prefer Bootstrap in most cases, because i like the base css plus you can compile with responsive.less so you got a mobile version too. Iam much faster when prototyping with bootstrap because it is very loose coupled and just plain markup (except for the plugins, those are great too).
Related
I have created a fully functional good looking website but it is not responsive as of now, I tried to make it responsive but the code is not developed that way.
So Now I am thinking to go for an alternative. i:e Jquery Mobile.
So there will be two websites one is for desktop and one is for mobile device(to be coded newly in jquery mobile). Whenever user visit with any mobile device, I will redirect the user to the mobile version.
So I just wanted to confirm if it could be the good practice or not. Will it impact SEO or Would there be any problem for the website in future if I go that way?
I have several sites that use jQuery Mobile and they all rank well and pass the Google Mobile Friendly Test, so I don't think you need to be too concerned about SEO being affected if you have two sites.
Having standalone mobile sites does have some advantages, for example you can make the page weight of your mobile sites lighter without any complicated javascript.
One to the downsides is that you'll have two versions on the same site to maintain. The only reason I still have some jQuery Mobile sites is that they are older and were designed before responsive web design was cross-browser reliable.
So I just wanted to confirm if it could be the good practice or not?
You can go either way. I found jQuery Mobile easy to implement and it has been very reliable and low maintenance. Personally I go for responsive design now, but I'm sure you'll find plenty of developers that prefer using standalone mobile sites and jQuery Mobile.
Good luck!
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Has anyone integrated meteor with mobile front-end frameworks?
In making mobile html5 apps look "more native" there are a number of CSS/front-end frameworks. eg:
Meteoric http://meteoric.github.io/
http://onsenui.io/
http://topcoat.io/
http://jquerymobile.com/ (shudder)
http://goratchet.com/one.html
http://ionicframework.com/
App.js: http://code.kik.com/app/2/index.html
http://lungo.tapquo.com/
http://famo.us/
http://goratchet.com/
http://www.idangero.us/framework7/
Foundation for apps
and more. In comparison to plain Bootstrap, the main benefits are:
preloading content
smooth full-screen page navigation
mobile widgets with "native look" for ios/android
But these frameworks often have use their own MVC model, for example pre-loading content into offscreen DIVs and doing full-screen transitions. they often use an internal router or Pushstate which would conflict with Meteor/IronRouter. And ionic for example depends on angular...
Has anyone had success with this type of integration? Any leads appreciated.
Meteoric
http://meteoric.github.io/
is a port of ionic, to remove the Angular stuff, and make some UI parts reactive. EDIT: not being updated now that angular is an option to jam into meteor itself.
related article:
https://medium.com/space-camp/cross-platform-uis-for-mobile-meteor-apps-6f12b583b205
this does seem like a great solution for mobile, but won't help if you want one UI to be responsive across to desktop devices too. they have deliberately kept the grid simple and mobile focused.
As I understand, you are interested in any cases of mobile front-end framework integration with meteor.
Let me show you great example famo.us + meteor from Percolate Studio - guys who are doing a lot of stuff with meteor and for meteor too. Here announce in meteor blog, also video from devshop
Some useful links in blog and devshop will be a good example of successful mobile+meteor integration in production app.
Ratchet is available as an atmosphere package. It does not include all the javascript parts of the framework but very handy nonetheless.
meteor-ionic
It uses the ionic
Bootcards is very good choice it's not meteor package yet .
Ratchet is lightweight but also good choice .
another new contender is Materialize which is a CSS/JS version of the material design elements, ie no angular required:
https://github.com/Dogfalo/materialize
here's a blog on some of the basics
http://blog.differential.com/the-easy-way-to-add-material-design-to-your-meteor-app/
pros
Materialize seems to have a decent set of widgets, and nice animations.
cons
pure android look, don't expect any appstore feature love
no full-page transitions out of the box, like meteoric
From the general goal sense, the front end part of Meteor somewhat conflicts with Angularjs. However, nothing is impossible if you really want to make them together. To accommodate them together, you need to do some special tricks. This following post shared the experience to make them working together.
mrt:ionic is the package by integrating meteor and ionic together. But it does not support the latest meteor version. You'd better wait for some time for the update.
Foundation for Apps from Zurb is another option, but it's built on Angular so would have to be ported/hacked about in the same way the Ionic project was.
http://foundation.zurb.com/apps/
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am working in Asp.net MVC for last 1 year but I have never used AngularJs , BackboneJs or KnockoutJs . Now I want to use it in my project but I am little bit confuse that for MVC which is one is Best . Somewhere I read that AngularJs has best perfomance but mostly used with MVVM framework so kindly provide me proper guidance that with Asp.net MVC which js is best either AngularJs or BackboneJs or KnockoutJs ?
Thanks in Advance.
If you are building single page application you need a SPA framework. It should include two-way data-binding, client-side routing, page composition, navigation, screen state management, module system, bundling. You can choose between Angular and Durandal. They both provide very similar functionality, but in my opinion, Durandal is the most complete SPA framework, which is very easy to use. Both Durandal and Angular can be used with Breezejs to build data centric applications.
check Durandal, Durandal Auth and HotTowel Angular
If you are building ASP.NET MVC application, then all you need on the client side is two-way data binding to reduce DOM manipulations. In my opionion, it's an overkill to use angular just for data-binding. Backbone or Knockout are good choices, but Angular can be used as well.
It depends on the nature of your application. And since you did not
describe it in great detail, it is an impossible question to answer. I
find Backbone to be the easiest, but I work in Angular all day.
Performance is more up to the coder than the framework, in my opinion.
Are you doing heavy DOM manipulation? I would use jquery and backbone
Very data driven app? Angular with it's nice data binding
Game programming? none, direct to canvas, maybe a game engine - Source
Also, take a look at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5112899/knockout-js-vs-backbone-js
You can check the following source. It's really complete:
http://www.infoq.com/research/top-javascript-mvc-frameworks
Personally, I'd go for Angular just because of its performance, but there are plenty of reasons...
I'm using Knockout with ASP.NET MVC/Web API at work, but I have played with Angular at home and honestly prefer that. Bear in mind though that Knockout solves a much smaller problem than does Angular, the latter being a complete SPA framework (with services, HTML directives etc). To compare apples to apples, you should consider Knockout in tandem with Durandal, as this is a full-blown SPA framework like Angular.
From practical experience I suspect that memory leaks are easier to avoid with Angular than Knockout, since Knockout produces references implicitly as you subscribe to observables (typically via ko.computed) and we had a very hard time trying to track down such memory leaks due to undiciplined taking of Knockout subscriptions without cleaning up. With Angular I couldn't see that you have the same problem, as you don't subscribe directly to mutating variables ("observables"). Instead, the framework is in full control of applying model changes, which might be harder to grasp initially, but ultimately leads to better maintainability.
I have not tried knockout or backbone. With Angular I have worked with ASP.NET MVC. I personally did not like using MVC views. As Angular requires POJO (Plain Old JavaScript Objects) , So, I changed to Web Api and Angular. To be honest I am very satisfied with Angular because of following reasons:
DOM maniuplations are done where they belong.
Two way binding
Designed with unit testing
Services are where they belong
Designed with HTML5 in mind
Ability to create HTML markup to suit business needs (directives) and many more.
I am having concerns with html5 based mobile Apps.
In jquery mobile I have seen some of the multipage templates which are working good on chrome as a webpage but if i consider mobile Apps single page templates works good but so many lines of code in one html file is very much hard to understood.
Is there any tool that can bind multiple HTML files in a single file which helps in fast processing?
also which are the best practices that i can follow as to handle these issues.
Hi I'm trying to make sense of your question and I think you should probably go with something like http://www.codiqa.com/
There you can use a GUI to build jQuery Mobile apps.
They have a 15 day free trial (formerly 30), so you can check it out before you decide.
I've read the Sencha Touch docs. I feel its MVC model is very attractive but it seems to has a long start-up time, especially with external JavaScript (eg:map).
Although I'm comfortable using jQuery in a web site, I have concerns about the maturity of jQuery Mobile. (I haven't tested it yet)
I have no idea about Dojo's mobile framework.
Which of these alternatives do you like? Why?
So what exactly are you requirements? Each framework has different several advantages and disadvantages....
Me personally I use Jquery Mobile, which is now at it's first official release. Don't let version numbers fool you, this has been developed 1 year long and actually works pretty good!
The others provide different capabilities:
sencha is based on javascript controls - you create the whole layout from within javascript using JSON notation for properties/actions/events
jqm allows you to use your "standard" HTML and enhances it "auto-magically". In my opinion this is the closest to HTML you'll ever get
Dojo is more about MVC and allows a more structured environment. Haven't used it personally so I can't say too much about it...
Hope this helps