Lineman vs Slush

Lineman integrates a powerful test runner - Test'em. By default it will test against PhantomJS and output in TAP13 format.

While Lineman is hands off when it comes to what you do on the client side, the workflow and tools used around it are opinionated, which means there's less to set up, the tools picked are fine tuned to work together, and you can get up and running faster without having to decide between dozens of tools. While it means less flexibility with the tools you use, it also means that advanced features are built in and available from the start, and you can focus on building the client side, without worrying about the tools around it.

Although Lineman is fully configurable, it comes with well tuned defaults and a built in scaffold so you can get up and running with advanced features quickly with things like continuous integration and live reloading with less or no configuration.

Lineman prides itself on avoiding assumptions on how things should be done and allows for greater freedom in tool choice. It generates a skeletal app, with no example code. Yet if you choose, you can get templates for Backbone, Ember, Angular and other frameworks.

Lineman is designed against code generation, which is a good thing as generated code requires more maintenance to keep library code in sync with the generated code, and is dangerous to use if you don't fully understand what the generated code is doing.

While the tools Lineman uses are opinionated, the build process is not as it uses Grunt, so you can get the benefits of a well tuned workflow while still being able to use whatever compiled languages and build process you want. Also, since Lineman handles the tasks outside of compilation and file transformation for you, you can keep your gruntfile simpler and easier to maintain as it would be dedicated to just the build system, and not other task management.

Licensed under MIT.

Slush scaffolds can use Inquirer to get CLI input for setting up projects.

Because Slush is built around streams and designed to work best with Gulp. It allows you to get the benefits of a streaming build system without having to manage the components yourself.

Because Slush is built on Gulp which puts code before configuration, scaffolding can be done in a simpler more straightforward way. Creating scaffolding through configuration requires more knowledge about the scaffold's specific implementation and remembering documentation, whereas doing it in code is more self explanatory and requires less domain knowledge to get others up to speed.

Because all Slush scaffolds share the commonality of streams, it's easier to combine them through that common interface. With configuration based workflow wrappers, different components may have specific implementations that can cause problems with interoperability. With streams, there's better encapsulation of functionality, making it harder to mess up a scaffold leading to better compatibility.

Slush has a well cataloged collection of scaffolds created for it by the community, providing a large collection of workflows prebuilt for almost any task you might want to perform.

You can view the list of generators here.