Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Learning Angular 2 Was Excruciating

hackernoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 226 posts

Re: Why Learning Angular 2 Was Excruciating

#131

Post by barryhoodlum »

codelike wrote: post #47
stevebmark wrote: post #9

To me this is still why React feels like the first front end UI framework that got it "right." It stays close to vanilla Javascript. There's a tiny API surface area to learn, and the rest is vanilla Javascript classes and functions. Angular's API, and apparently Angular 2.0's API, is still large, and strays far from vanilla Javascript

That's one of the pros often mentioned about React. In practice, I haven't found it to be true so far. Once you start using React, you'll almost certainly have to use one the Flux implementations. So let's say you use Redux. Suddenly you also have Actions, Reducers and Stores that you have to learn. If you want to use Async Actions (which is very likely in a web application), you'll probably need Redux Thunk, so that…

You don't "almost certainly" need Flux at all.

By coincidence Dan Abramov just posted this: https://medium.com/@dan_abramov/you-might-not-need-redux-be4...

Re: Why Learning Angular 2 Was Excruciating

#132

Post by robryan »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #93
jkkramer wrote: post #36

It's interesting to contrast how Google and Facebook both approach open source for the web. Google tends to release code and promote it without really using it much internally first. Documentation is prolific but confusingly organized and often fragmented among several versions simultaneously (cough, Google Analytics). Facebook, on the other hand, actually seems to use their code before releasing and promoting it. Lo…

Google tends to release code and promote it without really using it much internally first. According to Brad Green, the Engineering Director over Angular, Google AdWords, Google Fiber, and some internal tools are all built with NG2. AdWords is kind of big deal to Google. Edit: source for AdWords reference, http://angularjs.blogspot.com/2015/11/how-google-uses-angula...

They recently rebuilt google merchant center in angular.

Re: Why Learning Angular 2 Was Excruciating

#133

Post by Zelphyr »

untog wrote: post #125
janfoeh wrote: post #76

I've said it before here and I'll say it again: the JS ecosystem is moving in the wrong direction. Sometimes I feel that with Javascript, we developers have taken something that wasn't ours, and we're in the process of destroying the best thing there ever was about it. One of its best qualities used to be that you could have absolutely no idea what you're doing, read a few bad tutorials somewhere on the web, mash you…

jQuery isn't dead - they're still releasing new versions. You can still do everything you used to be able to. But now you can also do more - you can sensibly modularise your code. Virtual DOMs bring huge performance boosts with very little work. IMO, the JavaScript ecosystem has matured. Sometimes in weird ways that aren't great, but it's still better to have an irritating package manager than no package manager at a…

The problem is, it has become popular in our industry to equate new with "quality". So, while you're correct that jQuery isn't dead and in fact is more mature, there are too many who won't use it almost because its mature. Its not the new shiny that it once was. But frameworks like React and Angular are very shiny. Even though, in my opinion, they're quite simply a mess.

Re: Why Learning Angular 2 Was Excruciating

#134

Post by untog »

Zelphyr wrote: post #133
untog wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

jQuery isn't dead - they're still releasing new versions. You can still do everything you used to be able to. But now you can also do more - you can sensibly modularise your code. Virtual DOMs bring huge performance boosts with very little work. IMO, the JavaScript ecosystem has matured. Sometimes in weird ways that aren't great, but it's still better to have an irritating package manager than no package manager at a…

The problem is, it has become popular in our industry to equate new with "quality". So, while you're correct that jQuery isn't dead and in fact is more mature, there are too many who won't use it almost because its mature. Its not the new shiny that it once was. But frameworks like React and Angular are very shiny. Even though, in my opinion, they're quite simply a mess.

I think there is an element of people using things because they are new and shiny, yes. But plenty of people use React and Angular over jQuery because they make 1000x more sense when putting together a large web application with multiple developers contributing to the codebase.

Re: Why Learning Angular 2 Was Excruciating

#135

Post by cromwellian »

Retric wrote: post #111
jkkramer wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my experience with their web-oriented and JavaScript projects. They definitely put out lots of high quality open source work in other domains.

Google does not actually do much with JavaScript. Sure they have gmail, but they put a lot more effort into graceful degradation than most web companies.

Google has larger and more complex JS apps than most other companies on the planet. They do a lot with Javascript besides gmail. Maps, Docs, Photos, G+, are all large Javascript applications. And those are just a few.

Re: Why Learning Angular 2 Was Excruciating

#136

Post by barryhoodlum »

peferron wrote: post #66
stevebmark wrote: post #9

To me this is still why React feels like the first front end UI framework that got it "right." It stays close to vanilla Javascript. There's a tiny API surface area to learn, and the rest is vanilla Javascript classes and functions. Angular's API, and apparently Angular 2.0's API, is still large, and strays far from vanilla Javascript

Is the comparison fair? I haven't tried Angular 2, but it seems much more full-featured than React. For example, I guess that Angular 2 includes a router, while React doesn't, and just a few days ago there was a vitriolic thread just here on HN about the state of react-router. If you look at react-redux-starter-kit [1], I would absolutely not say that it's simple. This file [2] is only 12 lines of code but can you ca…

It's not a fair comparison. React is just a view layer. It's not trying to offer everything that you'd need to write a web application.

React has become synonymous in some people's minds with "React + a bunch of other stuff", but this wasn't intentional. It's an unfortunate side effect of its popularity.

Re: Why Learning Angular 2 Was Excruciating

#137

Post by Udik »

dragonwriter wrote: post #60
tomnipotent wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RC absolutely means non-breaking API changes. Bug fixes yes, but the API will be stable.

It does not "absolutely" mean that. It certainly means API changes are not anticipated, and that there should be a very significant problem with an API to lead to an API change at that point; certainly one would hope that fundamental flaws in an API that make it unsuitable for release would be identified well before an RC. But its certainly possible to have reasons to make a breaking change from an RC (e.g. -- not ne…

> its certainly possible to have reasons to make a breaking change from an RC

Sure. After which you issue a new RC, not the final release.

Re: Why Learning Angular 2 Was Excruciating

#138

Post by rsyntax »

janfoeh wrote: post #107
Andrex wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get where you're coming from but your comment boils down in favor of unoptimized and insecure code. And I can't agree with that. I would also point out that the web is the most backwards-compatible platform of all time and Alice and Bob can continue doing their thing for as long as they want. The tools that professionals use today are an abstraction to increase efficiency and reduce code reuse, in the same way most…

I appreciate your position, I really do. It's not like I am clear-cut on this myself, even if my frustration makes it sounds like I am. I appreciate that the language, the platform and the web itself needs to evolve. But I object to the argument that people can just continue to do their thing, because people in that position are overwhelmingly dependent on the ecosystem. Guidance, libraries, tools. And that ecosystem…

jQuery still exists. IMO, the ecosystem has just moved towards rich-client front end applications. There was no good tool/framework for that and people started fulfilling that need. Of course you could write like you said "unoptimized (or just plain horrible) code" which in an actual application is huge price to pay. I think it all boils down to being able to use the right tool for the job. I wouldn't advise using React or Angular to show static content e.g an splash page.

Re: Why Learning Angular 2 Was Excruciating

#140

Post by oldmanjay »

Zelphyr wrote: post #126
oldmanjay wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were impossible to trivially build low-function websites, you'd have more impact with your point. As it stands, it comes off more like union guys complaining that hardworking people make them look bad.

Seems to me OP is stating the exact opposite. That the JS ecosystem used to be more egalitarian with a much lower barrier to entry than (ironically) what frameworks like React and Angular provide.

If the OP is stating that it is possible to trivially create low-function websites then I am befuddled. Why complain that what is wanted is achievable?

Or perhaps this is one of those things where people assert that the existence of things they don't want to use is somehow offensive. Still isn't a very helpful point to make.

Post reply on HN