When comparing Lineman vs Slush, the Slant community recommends Slush for most people. In the question“What are the best workflow wrappers for front-end development?” Slush is ranked 3rd while Lineman is ranked 4th. The most important reason people chose Slush is:
Slush scaffolds can use [Inquirer](https://www.npmjs.org/package/inquirer) to get CLI input for setting up projects.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Comes with a full-featured test runner
Lineman integrates a powerful test runner - Test'em. By default it will test against PhantomJS and output in TAP13 format.
Pro Opinionated workflow
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.
Pro Intelligent defaults
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.
Pro Client-side framework agnostic
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.
Pro Provides project structure without code generation
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.
Pro Flexible build system with Grunt
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.
Pro Update your tools without breaking the configuration
Pro Free and open source
Licensed under MIT.
Pro Interactively set up projects with the Inquirer module
Slush scaffolds can use Inquirer to get CLI input for setting up projects.
Pro Built from the ground up to work with Gulp
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.
Pro Easier to maintain scaffolding through code
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.
Pro Scaffolds are easier to hook up together
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.
Pro Own 'repository' of different project templates
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.
Con By trying it do everything by itself it has become a monolithic software
Lineman tries to minimize the work that the developer has to do but in doing so, it has become a complicated monolith of a software built on top of Grunt tasks. It would be easier and more minimalistic and maintainable for a developer to just create the Gruntfile themselves.
Con Still young with few generators available
Slush is still young compared to Yeoman. Although it has quite a few generators made by third parties and it's quite easy to make one yourself. It still has fewer generators than older alternatives.