I don't really understand or appreciate what makes this framework better than something like Backbone, Spine or Sproutcore.
Or to put it in another way: What problem does this solve that Backbone/Spine/Sproutcore don't solve as well?
Or to put it in another way: What problem does this solve that Backbone/Spine/Sproutcore don't solve as well?
Besides, we're still in the first to second generation of js rich client frameworks. All this crazy amount of experimentation is great; it'll settle down more towards the fourth to fifth generation.
What we're seeing today is are mostly front-end MVC solutions that have a more populist approach towards platform and usability as those two have matured substantially due to the current global propagation of a certain genre of apps. I hate to admit it, but Facebook has done wonders in terms of providing feedback as to how much a user will tolerate beyond static HTML as well as educating the user to accept as standard certain classes of JS functionality as they iterate through implementations.
That said, the amount of effort in these frameworks is admirable and pushes ideas and best practices forward.
There is no ubiquitous JS MVC framework because to be honest, either the APIs out there are not very good or it's too much overhead to simply pick up and use for a beginner in many cases.