I've been playing with this tonight. I had absolutely no problem paying for the beta - I've paid Microsoft and Apple for betas and they need the cash a lot less than these guys.<p>That said, I wouldn't quite recommend it if you're on the fence or just want a quick intro to Cappuccino. It <i>is</i> a beta -- there are a lot of polish issues with the cocoa app, there are some bugs, and these are understandable. But the biggest problem of all is the total dearth of documentation. There is a class guide, there are some non-Atlas tutorials, and that's about it. So, for instance, my app template comes up by default with a menubar, but there's no obvious way I can see to remove or edit it. MainMenu.cib has no menu in it, so I can't even see how to make connections to it and there's nothing to read to find out.<p>It's definitely impressive -- that they've done this in JS and running in a browser is a little marvel. However, I'm pretty used to Xcode and Interface Builder, and in comparison it's really not there. Trying to work with multiple embedded split-views really highlighted the differences: it's tricky enough in IB, and proved almost impossible here. That they've achieved so much does mean that you're into uncanny valley territory; if it looks like a cocoa app, I want it to work like one too.<p>However, the things I <i>could</i> figure out how to do, worked well. I defined outlets and actions, hooked them up, and was basically thinking and coding exactly as I would in Cocoa and Objective-C. Nifty.<p>It has got a fair way to go, but I think they well might get there. If you're already working with Cappuccino and don't need documentation, it could well be worth your time.
I was really looking forward to signing up for the beta this evening, but unfortunately I'm on Windows and the beta is currently Mac only.<p>I'm surprised that more people haven't heard of 280 North or Objective-J and Cappuccino in general. I would consider myself moderately inclined when it comes to technology and I had heard of Cappuccino close to a year ago. I watched the demo of Atlas some weeks back and I was really impressed with what they've accomplished.<p>I think they're doing the right thing by charging for the beta. It's a small team of guys doing the development and I'm sure they could use the money. Not to mention, if you're paying for a beta then you've likely been following the development, have serious intent on using the technology long term and will likely contribute more than a casual user would - which from what I gather is exactly the target market they're after.<p>Looking forward to windows support in the coming month(s).
How is a signup form meant to be interesting? Perhaps I'm just out of the loop, but the only thing I know about Atlas now is that it's associated with Heroku and it will cost more than $20. That's not enough.
"<i>Membership does not include a copy of the final version of Atlas, but we'll deduct the $20 from the final price.</i>"<p>Has there been any indication as to the neighborhood of the final price? I'd hate to invest a bunch of time learning a new tool to find out that it's priced outside of my budget when it releases.