Mobile Web App Frameworks: Ionic (AngularJS)

Ionic framework is the youngest in our top 5 stack, as the alpha was released in late November 2013. Built on top of the popular AngularJS framework from Google, Ionic utilizes AngularJS to provide the application structure, while Ionic itself focuses on the user interface. In other words, we see a match between the power of Angular and the beauty of Ionic UI.

Ionic provides a set of Angular directives (custom HTML elements) for it’s own components, making it as easy to use the widgets as writing a line of HTML code. In addition to directives, Ionic uses Angular’s touch recognizers, view animation logic, HTML sanitation, and asynchronous communication.

While you can use Ionic straight after cloning or unpacking the library zip, you can also install their Node.js-based CLI through NPM and start quickly with their seed project.

Even though Angular is currently the Ionic’s workhorse, the developers are keeping their (and ours) options open with plans to support other frameworks such as Knockout or EmberJS. This particular review is strongly influenced by AngularJS and it doesn’t vouch for the accuracy with other frameworks when Ionic support emerges.

MV* Pattern

Angular JS used to be an MVC framework, but over time it became closer to MVVM where the $scope object acts as a ViewModel, manipulated through a Controller function. With such a flexible approach developers can use MVC or MVVM per their liking, as long as the goal is achieved: separating presentation from business logic while boosting maintainability and productivity.

Class System

Neither Angular JS or Ionic are object oriented JavaScript frameworks so they don’t make use of a class system. This can (but shouldn’t) be observed as a weakness or a strength, depending on the level of simplicity requested on the JavaScript front end.

DOM control

Angular embeds jqLite, a fraction of jQuery that allows DOM manipulation in a cross-browser compatible manner, leaving a very small footprint. For extended functionality, jQuery can be loaded with the document.

UI and Theming

When it comes to UI, Ionic shows its potential. Ionic’s true beauty is its simplicity. In almost Google-like (but not Android-like) style it uses the existing HTML5 and CSS3 capabilities to deliver fast experiences. The speed is exactly in its simplicity – no unnecessary shadows, rounded corners, gradients but just flat, clean simple, powerful, unadulterated HTML5. Ionic doesn’t promise you native-looking UI, but it does deliver very fast and consistent interface, even on the devices you considered to be slow with rendering HTML5 apps.


Customizable through SASS, Ionic comes with handy variables and mixins to extend for customized appearance. Additionally, it’s packaged with its own open sourced icon library featuring over 440 icons to chose from.


Ionic’s components are powerfully simple. They are custom HTML elements, as per Angular directive principles, but Ionic also provides Controllers to complement configuration and interaction. While some frameworks may provide more complex widgets, Ionic offers somewhat simpler building blocks that can be combined to deliver rich user interfaces. As of alpha version, the framework provides with a plethora of form elements, header and footer bars, buttons, a simple list with customizable items, grid elements, and more.

Responsive Design (RWD)

Internally, Ionic leverages Responsive Web Design principles to yield optimized experience such as based on screen size or pixel density. Any app-specific RWD scenarios are welcome and will play very nicely with Ionic.

Desktop support

Meant for hybrid mobile applications (installable on a mobile device through an app store), Ionic is not meant to be be used for desktop web apps/sites. While the content will be displayed nicely, it will be optimized for its intended purpose. Those wishing to create apps that fit both environments can stay with Angular JS, but use Zurb Foundation, Twitter Bootstrap or similar UI library.

Third party plugins

No third party plugins or extensions are available at the moment.


Much of extensibility in Ionic will come either from (S)CSS or creating Angular directives and controllers. That makes extensibility an integral part of application development – unavoidable, but not demanding at all. Even the developers new at Ionic and Angular won’t struggle.

Building tools

Grunt is used for building Ionic making that #1 JavaScript building tool that much more attractive for your project’s purposes.

Packaging (native)

Ionic apps will require external tools for packaging purposes. It is tested to work with PhoneGap, Cordova, and

Device API

Ionic does not support device APIs.


Ionic’s documentation is decently complete considering the alpha stage of the framework. Example rich, the docs show a preview of what most of components will do on a mobile device. And the preview is very attractive, too.

Angular’s documentation will satisfy beginner developers, but may soon become insufficient. As the appetites for information grow to expert levels, developers may be forced to resort to the source code or elsewhere.


Both Ionic and AngularJS are available under the MIT license.


Since it’s in a very early stage of life, Ionic still doesn’t have a mature community. However, given the same circumstance, its popularity is raising faster than for many other (and older) frameworks.

What would they say?

JavaScript developer: A refreshing and straight forward way of building rich apps no matter the size. The MVC and MVVM patterns are done cum grano salis, as the old latin would say had they had the opportunity to work with Angular JS. Additionally, as views are defined using HTML and data models as simple as plain JavaScript objects, the developers will easily end up writing less code and use less of the expensive time to produce high quality apps.

Designer: Passionate designers will love Ionic as it allows them to customize the layout to their liking, without having to modify someone else’s complicated widgets and potentially break the app’s functionality. Customizing the UI may remind of working with Zurb Foundation or Twitter Bootstrap.

Product manager: The initial barrier to get started with AngularJS is very low, without needing to know the entire framework in order to build an easy app. However, beginners faced with more advanced tasks in a complex application will face an increasingly steep learning curve. Also, Angular is built with testing in mind. Make use of it early in the game.

Keep in mind that Ionic is meant to be used for hybrid apps and not mobile websites.

Do you know Bash Shell Script Framework

When working with shell script programming, you should ask yourself why this one is so basic (but powerful), and you need to do everything from beginning. For example, logging to file, stripping double quote, call database script, …

These things are easy and full support in modern web programming language, but in shell script programming, what do you have to tackle your jobs?

Fortunately, there are some bash shell script framework that you can use for your work and contribute to get it powerful.

Bashinator support logging, printing, emailing with colorful output also with call stack traces and lockfile handling. It’s flexible and powerful.

Shesfw is a collection of bash functions composing a API for Shell applications. It includes:

  1. Print output and input functions (with several interfaces, textual or graphical)
  2. Automatic build/remove of temporary directories
  3. Log function
  4. Argument treatment
  5. Functions for configuration files

The main goal is provide less effort on shell development.

log4sh is an advanced logging framework for shell scripts (eg. sh, bash) that works similar to the logging products available from the Apache Software Foundataion (eg. log4j, log4perl).

oo-style framework for bash 4. It provides tools for rapid script development and huge libraries. Written in bash

This framework is intended to help on easy bash script development. It is totally modularized. It helps you developing new Bash Script programs by forcing you to modularize and organize your code in functions, so that your program can be tested.

This bash library project is a library of bash functions.

Bash-Toolbox is a simple set of functions and instructions that help develop script applications in Bash.

Responsive Design Frameworks: Just Because You Can, Should You?

Responsive design is about building a website with a grid-based layout, images that resize and media queries, as described by Ethan Marcotte. After Marcotte defined the technique, responsive design frameworks began to emerge that incorporated these principles. Mostly based on CSS and JavaScript, many of these frameworks are open-source, free to download and quickly customizable.

Some of the most popular today are Bootstrap and Foundation, which we’ll focus on in this article.

As responsive design frameworks became popular, a big debate emerged: Why would a professional designer use a responsive design framework?

Internet debates rage on. Many declare that responsive design frameworks are awful, that only people who don’t know HTML and CSS would ever use such a thing. Here were the standard arguments against frameworks:

  • A designer could write their own grid system, and they probably should if they know any HTML and CSS.
  • Websites based on frameworks load slowly.
  • All websites based on frameworks look the same.
  • Bloat is common, whether due to the extra div tags, the 5000+ lines of CSS or the large JavaScript files.

While detractors complain vociferously, responsive design frameworks continue to grow in popularity. I suggest that these frameworks have positive aspects, even for the most experienced front-end Web developer, and I’ll outline these below.

A Place For Responsive Design Frameworks

One morning, I was listening to Eli White’s keynote presentation at the Northeast PHP Conference. White is a PHP developer, and his talk was a retrospective of the development of the Web and PHP over the last 20 years. One point he made was that, 15 years ago, back-end developers built everything from scratch. Not much was available in the open-source world at the time, and proprietary content management systems (CMS) cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you wanted a survey for your website, for example, you had to write one from scratch.

Now in 2014, back-end developers no longer do this. Why would they, when they can use SurveyMonkey’s API to create something for their client in 10 hours, rather than 100 or 1000 hours? Is SurveyMonkey’s code the most awesome in the world, the most efficient, the most cleverly written and bloat-free? I am not a PHP developer and don’t know the answer to that. However, the API is tested and debugged, it runs well, and it is ready to be incorporated in your next project — and that has tremendous value.

Unless your client wants something very specific and has the money to fund such a project, as White explained, most PHP developers would argue that there is no good reason to write your own survey by hand in 2014.

So, what’s the equivalent technology shortcut for the front end of a website?Unfortunately, we don’t have one.

Currently, we have two choices for creating the front end of a website. The first choice is to download a template (or theme). Commonly used with CMS-based websites, a theme might come with a few color choices and a few variables to be tweaked. On the plus side, most themes are available for free or a very low cost relative to the cost of the overall website. Downloading a theme, changing some colors and dropping in a logo takes little time.

What’s more, a good theme will be updated regularly, and it will come with documentation, making it much more straightforward to modify. On the negative side, a theme might be used by many and not be unique in the slightest, and it might even make the website look like it belongs to a particular CMS.

The second choice is a fully customized solution. A graphic designer would be hired to discuss branding, and they would iterate through three designs and two rounds of revisions, perhaps prototype directly in the browser or convert the designs to HTML and CSS, integrate the design with a CMS or their back end of choice if desired, and deliver the (hopefully) perfect result to the client. On the plus side, each tag would be precisely placed, and the code would be perfectly semantic, with not an ounce of fat or an excess div to be found.

To achieve this, though, the developer must be highly trained and experienced — and whenever a developer of that caliber is involved, the price tag goes up accordingly, putting the project out of financial reach of small clients and adding significantly to the expenditures of large clients. Furthermore, unless additional dollars are spent on documentation (which is unusual in my experience), if the initial developer leaves, then the next developer would have to figure out the code in order to modify it. That’s an additional cost to the client.

Where’s the middle ground between downloading a low-end design, used all over the Internet, and creating something highly customized and expensive? Where is the equivalent of a back-end developer’s API or code library? Can we create some kind of mass customization for the front end?

We need to be able to tap into some prewritten elements, combine them with customized additions, and develop a solution that’s more customized than a canned theme but less customized than a high-end solution. By not starting from scratch, we’ll have saved hours of time in development and saved money for the client.

Am I saying we should ditch customized solutions for frameworks? No, of course not. A fully customized solution has its place in the Web development world, just as canned CMS themes have their place. If your client has the time and money to achieve perfection and a fully customized solution is a sound approach for the project, then why not?

But many clients have very limited time and money, and they might not be able to wait or pay for perfection. Can we get something that’s “pretty good” instead?Perhaps not every div would be perfectly placed, and there might be a few too many of them. Perhaps the code takes a bit longer than necessary to download. Nevertheless, the solution would be documented, in active development and customizable, and it could be built on quickly for much less than a custom website. There is value in that.

Like every other technology at our disposal in the Web development world, a responsive design framework has its own positives and negatives that we need to consider.

Positives And Negatives Of Responsive Design Frameworks

Focusing on Bootstrap 3 and Foundation 5, let’s explore many of the positive and negative aspects of building your next website with one of these frameworks.


Debugging for browsers sometimes take as long as developing the website itself. If you can reduce the time spent on debugging, you could save significant costs for the client (and your own hair).

Responsive design frameworks have already been tested on a specific set of browsers and devices, which reduces the work required to launch a website. (The amount of testing you’d have to do will vary according to how much you’ve customized the framework. If you’ve changed only a few colors, then only minimal testing is required. If you’ve hacked the grid system, then testing would need to be extensive.)

The latest versions of Bootstrap and Foundation support Internet Explorer (IE) 9 and up. There are tricks to making the frameworks work in IE 8, but IE 6 and 7 are not compatible with either. In general, these frameworks also support the latest versions of other common browsers, including Firefox, Safari and Chrome, as well as different sets of mobile browsers.

Unfortunately, if you want to support a browser that hasn’t been tested, then you might discover bugs that need to be fixed in code that you aren’t familiar with.


Bootstrap and Foundation have standard download packages that contain all of the required files, styles and widgets. Some files are large, and there are several files to download. In general, files come in both human-readable and minified formats.

Just because your framework of choice ships with styles and JavaScript to support dozens of components doesn’t mean you have to download and integrate them all.Bootstrap and Foundation allow you to customize your download package, so you can grab only the CSS and JavaScript that you need to run your website. This reduces bloat and, as a result, reduces downloading times, a common argument against frameworks.

Later, if you want to add a widget or style that you previously excluded, you might need to reconfigure the package. This can be avoided, though. I recommend developing the website first, without customizing the look, to determine exactly which features you need. You can then customize the download package to include code for only those features. Once the framework is in place, you can then customize the look of the website.

Note: When the next minor version of Bootstrap or Foundation is released, you’ll need to redownload the customized package. Take careful notes of what you have and have not downloaded, so that you can repeat the process when updating your files.


Some level of customization is likely required. You will probably want to change colors. If you’re more experienced, you may wish to hack the grid system.

Just because you’re using a framework doesn’t mean your website has to look like one. You can customize the CSS to give the website its own unique look, either by using LESS (for Bootstrap) or Sass (for Foundation) or simply by writing CSS from scratch.

The styles that come in Bootstrap out of the box are quite extensive, and the assumption is that you won’t be changing them extensively. You can override the CSS in a separate style sheet or by using LESS or Sass files. Unfortunately, little documentation is provided for LESS and Sass files, so you’ll need to figure out much of the code on your own. The abundant styles built into Bootstrap make it a popular choice for inexperienced front-end Web developers. (Note that Bootstrap has released Sass files within the last month. Prior to this, only LESS files were available for it.)

Foundation has fewer styles out of the box. While you can customize it with a separate style sheet, Foundation is more efficiently customized through its extensive Sass files (for which documentation is provided). With less CSS to override, you can build a fully customized look more easily. However, less experienced front-end developers might find Foundation more difficult to work with because of the greater knowledge of CSS and Sass required.

Bootstrap and Foundation can also be customized even before being downloaded, through simple changes to LESS and Sass variables. In Bootstrap, the customization options go on for pages, whereas only a handful of changes may be made to Foundation. But if you are not familiar with LESS or Sass, this is a quick and dirty way to customize the look of the framework.

Likewise, you can leverage the JavaScript provided to customize the functionality. The most recent versions of Bootstrap and Foundation require jQuery for customized widgets to work.

If you use the dedicated screens for Bootstrap and Foundation, then your download package will be customized. When the next minor version of each framework is released, you will need to customize the variables all over again for a new package.

Note that Foundation’s JavaScript includes a lot of well-placed semicolons. Bootstrap contains very few semicolons. This affects some developers’ choice of framework.


Accessibility is becoming increasingly important to developers. Both frameworks offer valid HTML, but let’s consider accessibility beyond valid HTML.

Bootstrap has made some advances with the help of Joomla. Joomla, an open-source CMS, incorporated Bootstrap into version 3. Joomla’s developers have a long-standing commitment to accessibility, and they did not want Bootstrap to reduce accessibility of the CMS. As a result, in Bootstrap 3 you’ll find ARIA codes and screen reader-only styles, among other accessibility improvements.

Foundation, unfortunately, has not prioritized accessibility thus far. It does not come with ARIA codes or screen reader-only styles. Zurb has stated, however, that it wants to do more.


No responsive design framework is perfect. For a tool that performs various jobs, extra code is required to make that tool flex to your needs. Granted, completely custom code would probably be more efficient for a website than a framework.

Some front-end developers tell me that they have their own grid system, CSS and JavaScript components that they maintain for their own websites. Certainly nothing is wrong with this approach. But you have to maintain that code yourself. A popular framework minimizes the need for maintenance and testing.

I’m calling on my fellow front-end Web developers to reconsider the prospect of using a responsive design framework. Think of it as a productivity tool that you can draw on in full or in part. Download just the grid system, or take the whole package with all of the extras. Perhaps use a framework just for prototyping purpose or actually reuse the parts of the framework that you know well in your own project.

A framework is intended to get a website running quickly, with minimum debugging. Customize the heck out of it to look completely different, or change just a few colors and be done. However you use it, you’ll have standardized, documented code that can be easily passed on to another developer for maintenance and tweaking and that looks reasonable and functions well. The code is not perfect of course, but it’s pretty good. It cuts down the time required to create a website, which will make the website cost a bit less, too.

The world certainly has room for fully customized websites. I don’t mean to suggest dropping them in favor of mass customization. However, the next time a client wants a bit more in their design but is stretched for budget, perhaps it’s a good idea to consider a responsive design framework after all. You might find it to be a helpful tool in your arsenal, for quick prototyping, testing or even production code — one that expands your range of products and makes clients happy.