That's what's missing here - a set of criteria defining what matters in the evaluation.
What are the key criteria and what core does each framework get? Also, the "built some new thing" must be evaluated and scored alongside the others.
If "we are building for super low bandwidth users" matters then it should be stated in this blog post.
Here's a start point for criteria for evaluating JS frameworks - each framework should get a score against the criteria, and the criteria should be weighted to indicate importance for this project:
* Open source number of project maintainers and activity level of project commits
* Maturity
* Size of user base/community
* Size of runtime
* Quality of documentation
* Availability of third party components
* Recruiting new team members - availability of developers experienced with this framework
* IDE support
* Availability of third party documentation
* Number of questions and answers on Stack Overflow/online forums
* Experience level of framework within our team
etc etc add criteria that matter to you.
What are the key criteria and what core does each framework get? Also, the "built some new thing" must be evaluated and scored alongside the others.
If "we are building for super low bandwidth users" matters then it should be stated in this blog post.
Here's a start point for criteria for evaluating JS frameworks - each framework should get a score against the criteria, and the criteria should be weighted to indicate importance for this project:
* Open source number of project maintainers and activity level of project commits
* Maturity
* Size of user base/community
* Size of runtime
* Quality of documentation
* Availability of third party components
* Recruiting new team members - availability of developers experienced with this framework
* IDE support
* Availability of third party documentation
* Number of questions and answers on Stack Overflow/online forums
* Experience level of framework within our team
etc etc add criteria that matter to you.