22 comments

[ 182 ms ] story [ 1290 ms ] thread
I've been using a quite different approach at structuring my Node.js applications: http://bergie.iki.fi/nodext/

With NodeXT you build the application out of multiple modules (extensions), which you then "mount" into the URL structure you want to use.

Helps keeping code more decoupled and reusable.

The namespace for FOSS is getting crowded: http://www.getskeleton.com/ Not a bad thing.
This is a killer HTML/CSS boilerplate. It's clean and simple and does just enough to get a responsive layout up-and-running.
I heavily prefer it for simple sites. Once you start needing all the bells and whistles, you can look elsewhere. Right tool etc... Don't need twitter bootstrap for every blog or repo site out there.
What's the distinction between controllers, helpers, and views?
why would you name something after an already successful project with the same name.

face palm

To tell the truth, I wasn’t aware of the "other" Skeleton.
Very cool; I'll be playing around with this a bit, looks like a nice and fast way to get started with a Node web app.

Side note: generally good practice to throw your name into Google (for example, "skeleton framework" or some combination of relevant words) to see what was returned before landing on your name (http://www.getskeleton.com/)

It's bad news, running CoffeeScript without compiling it to JavaScript first. If your code throws an exception it won't print line numbers. Don't take my word for it: https://github.com/isaacs/coffee-cleanse

I also take issue with the name. Node is extremely popular among front-end devs and others have pointed out the popular skeleton CSS base library.

Finally sprockets is obsolete for JavaScript, with CommonJS/AMD and tools like browserify and RequireJS. It's also obsolete for stylesheets if you're using Less or Sass.

What is the justification for CoffeeScript?