I totally disagree. It is very simple making a JSON object yes. But designing interfaces this way is very time consuming, if you really care about the result.

There is also the general principle that designing a visual interface visually is a more immediate and logical approach, you can see the results immediately.

Sorry but the reason I don’t use ExtJS is because of the torturous time I had crafting the interface in JSON, compared to a traditional HTML/CSS interface, or to creating Desktop applications.

From my experience a tool like this is definetely needed for serious GUI work of this kind.

Awesome quote – so incredibly true.
—–

Yeah works both ways, If the Ext team stopped trawling the web whining about people whining about their license we would probably have Ext.4 by now mmmmwwwwwhahahahahahahahaha

“However, since the FSF chose to make a separate license (the AGPL) just to clarify this point, this indicates that they do not consider the GPL to require the open sourcing of modifications to the server end of a web application (the FSF also had the opportunity to build the AGPL into GPL 3 and declined to do so, deciding instead to keep it as a separate license). Since they created these licenses and are regarded as the authority on them, their interpretation would be the one to follow regardless of the beliefs of Jack et. al.(It is likely the ExtJS interpretation is technically incorrect).”

Awesome quote – so incredibly true.

Why Ext is not listed in TaskSpeed comparison?

http://dante.dojotoolkit.org/taskspeed/

I’d like to know how it stacks up against the competition.

If you take the amount of time you spent whining here and multiply it by your hourly rate, you could have just gotten a license.

you mean that community of developers that constantly get the shaft from apple, for no real reason. the developers that have been jumping ship for more open platforms. those guys?

I recall when the ExtJS gang spoke about the licensing change and they said it was unclear and they were choosing to interpret the GPL as you suggest. However, since the FSF chose to make a separate license (the AGPL) just to clarify this point, this indicates that they do not consider the GPL to require the open sourcing of modifications to the server end of a web application (the FSF also had the opportunity to build the AGPL into GPL 3 and declined to do so, deciding instead to keep it as a separate license). Since they created these licenses and are regarded as the authority on them, their interpretation would be the one to follow regardless of the beliefs of Jack et. al.(It is likely the ExtJS interpretation is technically incorrect).

Charging people, I’m ok with though. Software developers need to eat too.

let’s live on fresh air and grass!

We should probably be more clear on this subject. It is NOT our intention to charge for every code generation cycle. For a Designer “Pro” license you would pay a monthly, quarterly or yearly fee and this would give you an unlimited amount of code generations and other more advanced features not available for users without a license.
We regret the way we formulated that sentence in our blogpost, but we don’t want to change it now. Instead we will post a blogpost in a further stage of development with more details about the pricing and advanced features that will be available in the “Pro” version of the Designer.

Just to repeat and be clear about this: We won’t charge for each code generation, instead we will release the Designer Pro under a SaaS model.

As an aside, SmartClient uses LGPL, which you can use commercially without releasing your server-side code.

The Affero license (while unrelated to ExtJS), is a GPL 3-like license that was created to clarify the confusion and allow for web servers to run software without it being considered distribution as the GPL 3 hints (and therefore requiring source code distribution).