The article comes across as very biased. Also; the article was posted by Matthew, a pretty significant contributor to CanJS, but this was not disclosed in the submission.
It wasn't until I was 3/4ths of the way through the article that I even caught on that Bitovi is the company that created CanJS since it is not a framework I have personally used or am all that familiar with.
From your own article you highlight these 3 points as describing "longevity"
1) Trust. (The framework shouldn’t break backwards compatibility.)
2) Consistent innovation
3) Proven Track Record
Both Knockout & Backbone have clearly demonstrated both points 1 & 3. Point 2 is dubious at best since depending on your definition of consistent innovation you may well break Point 1 - Trust.
Consistent innovation is also, IMHO, not a necessity of longevity. If I need to turn a screw I need a screwdriver. Tomorrow a screwdriver will still work; maybe it's a faster battery charged screwdriver, but it is essentially the same tool solving the same problem. KnockoutJS is a tool that still solves the same problem.
It wasn't until I was 3/4ths of the way through the article that I even caught on that Bitovi is the company that created CanJS since it is not a framework I have personally used or am all that familiar with.
From your own article you highlight these 3 points as describing "longevity"
1) Trust. (The framework shouldn’t break backwards compatibility.)
2) Consistent innovation
3) Proven Track Record
Both Knockout & Backbone have clearly demonstrated both points 1 & 3. Point 2 is dubious at best since depending on your definition of consistent innovation you may well break Point 1 - Trust.
Consistent innovation is also, IMHO, not a necessity of longevity. If I need to turn a screw I need a screwdriver. Tomorrow a screwdriver will still work; maybe it's a faster battery charged screwdriver, but it is essentially the same tool solving the same problem. KnockoutJS is a tool that still solves the same problem.