When comparing Aurelia vs Sencha Ext JS, the Slant community recommends Aurelia for most people. In the question“What are the best Angular.js alternatives?” Aurelia is ranked 2nd while Sencha Ext JS is ranked 10th. The most important reason people chose Aurelia is:
Full support for Typescript built in
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Out of the box Typescript support
Full support for Typescript built in
Pro Out of the box ES6 support
Aurelia includes native support for ES6 and even comes with a Gulpfile which helps with transpiling ES6 code to ES5.
Pro Conventions over configurations
Configured to give you the most common use cases by convention, which means you only need to change the default configuration for edge cases. This means that for normal cases far less boiler plate code has to be written.
Pro Allows developers to build their application however they want
Aurelia is extremely unopinionated and was designed to be highly modular. This gives the developer the freedom to develop their application however they want, without forcing them in paradigms or rules predefined by the framework. Likewise, any of the individual components can be swapped out if so desired.
Pro Good binding system
Clear, intuitive and HTML/SVG compliant binding syntax.
Default binding => value.bind
One Way binding => value.one-way
Two Way binding => value.two-way
One Time binding => value.one-time
Pro Standards compliant
Aurelia developers always try to keep within existing and emerging Web Standards, making it easier for developers to follow best practices in web development.
Pro Variable binding helps with self-documenting the code
Pro Agnostic code
Most of the code you write is Aurelia-agnostic. That way you can easily test it, switch to another implementation and make it look clean (business oriented). Even the HTML.
Pro Easy to learn
Learning aurelia basically means learning EcmaScript and HTML, since aurelia is designed for standards compliance. Also, aurelia embraces upcoming ES language features by convention, such as ES class decorators for dependency injection, encouraging clean architecture and future-proof code.
Pro Full commercial support
Aurelia is officially backed by Durandal Inc. and has commercial and enterprise support is available.
Pro Great documentation
One of the most crucial pieces of any new technology or framework is the documentation. At present even though Aurelia is pre-beta, the documentation is pretty complete. There are code examples missing and whatnot, but for the most part it is concise and makes the main parts of the application easy to understand.
Pro Data binding choices with sane defaults
Aurelia defaults to one-way data binding, alining with conventional wisdom. However, there are times when two-way data binding proves useful, such as binding an input widget with a view-model. Aurelia makes two-way data binding available to developers and uses it by convention when appropriate.
Aurelia.js consists of modules that can be used as a full framework or separately.
Pro Plays well with other frameworks
Aurelia can be used alongside of React and Polymer, since it is designed for interoperability. In practice, this means Aurelia developers can use React components by including an Aurelia custom element:
It also works well with Polymer, since they are both based on the WebComponents standards:
Pro Powerful helper CLI available
The CLI helps rapid creation of projects with generators, building, deploying and hot reloads. Webpack should be coming soon.
Pro Comprehensive documentation
The Sencha documentation is comprehensive, with detailed documentation and a number of examples displaying the various widgets, tools and themes.
Pro Supports MVC and MVVM development
Pro Supports Web and Mobile deployment out of the one framework or codebase
Pro Support for easy theming of applications
Pro Visual Design tool available
The Sencha Architect product allows you to visually build your application, or rapidly prototype a system.
Pro IDE Plugins available
A number of plugins are available for some of the commonly used IDEs (eg: JetBrains, Eclipse, Visual Studio), providing templates, refactoring support, hinting and code completion/generation, as well as management of includes and other time-saving features.
Pro Charting package included
Con No big success stories yet
There are no notable big web products build with aurelia yet
Con Needs more support from the community
It would be great to have a lot of plugins made by the community, or video tutorials from experiences when using it. Hopefully in the near term future.
Con Two-way data binding is often considered an anti-pattern
Two-way data-binding means that a HTML element in the view and an Angular model are binded, and when one of them is changed so is the other. One-way data-binding for example does not change the model when the HTML element is changed.
This is a rather controversial subject and many developers consider two-way data binding an anti-pattern and something that is useless in complex applications because it's very easy to create complex situations by using it and being unable to debug them easily or understand what's happening by just looking at the code.
Con Sencha CMD is bloated and frustrating to work with
To do any meaningful development, you are stuck with CMD. There is a gulp task that will handle the JS concatenation, but there is nothing outside of CMD that can handle theming in their ecosystem.
In addition, CMD is based on Java, and is very heavy to run (600MB+ on Windows 10 to watch for changes in the application and recompile).
Con Sencha CMD (their CLI) is under documented, and out of date
Their latest release of CMD changed some configuration locations, but the documentation was not updated to reflect this. There is no reference guide on the json configuration files, other than the (unfortunate use of) comments in the generated json files.
Con They use proprietary extensions to SASS, making it incompatible with anything but their Fashion processor
On the plus side, you do not have to install ruby alongside CMD for more recent versions of ExtJS. However, their Fashion processor seems to only be available through CMD.
Con Too often breaking changes between versions. They have little concept of backwards compatibility
Compounded by the fact that there are now two "toolkits" in the same "version" of ExtJS, with certain components not existing in one vs the other.
Con The IDE tools are not sold separately - you must purchase the appropriate license pack
You get all the IDE plugins, even if you only need one. They should offer sell them individually, or continue to bundle them with a dev license pack.
Con Difficult to integrate with 3rd party software
Any third party library you wish to include has to be wrapped in some sort of component adapter. You have to do a lot of tweaking to get the build process right if you want the 3rd party lib to be bundled into your application in the right order.
Con Can be expensive
The framework is a commercial package, and the recent decision to start with a minimum of 5 users may rule out smaller developer teams or startups. Recently, they have started a program that allow essentially what are contractors to purchase single licenses, but not individual, independent developers.