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

Opinionated Comparison of React, Angular2, and Aurelia

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: Opinionated Comparison of React, Angular2, and Aurelia

#31

Post by pluma »

SebastianM wrote: post #14

Comparing plain React with Angular and Aurelia is completely useless. You cannot write a big serious application with Form Validation, Data Fetching, Testing, etc, just with React itself. A fair comparison would be to write a whole "real world" project and then see what parts you have to use and learn to be able to write a full React application.

Author didn't compare "plain React". Author compared React with React Router (and possibly Redux/whatever for state).

Did you only read the part about the documentation?

Re: Opinionated Comparison of React, Angular2, and Aurelia

#32

Post by awjr »

vazhifarer wrote: post #15

This kind of comparison is meaningless. Compare React to Veu.js, as these are both view renderers, not full MV* frameworks. And compare Angular2 to Ember (with Fastboot), both of which are opinionated MV* frameworks. Not sure why this is on the front page

I found it interesting and he specifically pulled in react-router to get the balance needed for the comparison to be valid.

Re: Opinionated Comparison of React, Angular2, and Aurelia

#33

Post by awjr »

SebastianM wrote: post #26
janwillemb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing is never useless. How else would you discover differences? For someone like me, who is in the same process of finding the right js framework, articles like this do help. But you probably mean: the comparison excluded some crucial details.

> But you probably mean: the comparison excluded some crucial details. Exactly. You have to compare these kind of frameworks/libraries in "real world" situations and not just build two subpages and create some simple components to form an opinion. Real world single page applications need much more than just the view layer and a router.

Please please go read the article before making this type of statement.

Re: Opinionated Comparison of React, Angular2, and Aurelia

#35

Post by pluma »

Kiro wrote: post #9

I would love to hear how people solve the snackbar problem in React. I don't even see how you would solve it with redux since that's just the state.

The specific problem is solved by having the toasts as state and having the Snackbar merely concern itself with presenting that state.

The general problem of shared state is solved with Context (which react-redux uses btw) which is actually quite similar to Angular's DI except it's generally not advertised as something you should use yourself as an application developer (because it's usually too low-level compared to something like react-redux or react-router).

Re: Opinionated Comparison of React, Angular2, and Aurelia

#36

Post by SebastianM »

awjr wrote: post #33
SebastianM wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you probably mean: the comparison excluded some crucial details. Exactly. You have to compare these kind of frameworks/libraries in "real world" situations and not just build two subpages and create some simple components to form an opinion. Real world single page applications need much more than just the view layer and a router.

Please please go read the article before making this type of statement.

I did, no worries :)

Re: Opinionated Comparison of React, Angular2, and Aurelia

#37

Post by SebastianM »

awjr wrote: post #32
vazhifarer wrote: post #15

This kind of comparison is meaningless. Compare React to Veu.js, as these are both view renderers, not full MV* frameworks. And compare Angular2 to Ember (with Fastboot), both of which are opinionated MV* frameworks. Not sure why this is on the front page

I found it interesting and he specifically pulled in react-router to get the balance needed for the comparison to be valid.

When your application is just some views plus some routing - then that would be a fair comparison. But in most real world situations (SPA) it's much more: Form validation, Data Fetching, Unit Testing, Component styling, Translations, Modularization, ...

Re: Opinionated Comparison of React, Angular2, and Aurelia

#38

Post by atemerev »

React is, of course, a work of a genius. But may I suggest another option in the same spirit, which is Riot.js? It is more elegant, compact and better syntactically polished, while retaining React's convenience and performance.

(I had approached React right when the infamous Babel5->Babel6 transition happened, and was seriously burned by it.)

Re: Opinionated Comparison of React, Angular2, and Aurelia

#39

Post by pluma »

stanislavb wrote: post #2

And we can compare them on LibHunt by CodeQuality, Popularity & Dev Activity React VS Angular https://js.libhunt.com/project/react/vs/angular-js React VS Aurelia https://js.libhunt.com/project/react/vs/aurelia Angular VS Aurelia https://js.libhunt.com/project/angular-js/vs/aurelia BONUS Vue.js VS React https://js.libhunt.com/project/vue/vs/react It seems that Aurelia beats them all by Code Quality...

Aurelia beats them all by the aggregated, somewhat obscure "Code Quality" metric but is beaten by all of them in every other way. Except Ember, of course: https://js.libhunt.com/project/ember-js/vs/aurelia

No matter how accurate the metric is, a framework/library's value lies not in how perfect its code is. Nobody actually uses Aurelia (yes, that's hyperbole but even Ember beats Aurelia in every popularity metric except Downloads).

You can't simply define Aurelia into relevance, even if LibHunt backs it up. Also, who even uses LibHunt?

Re: Opinionated Comparison of React, Angular2, and Aurelia

#40

Post by stymaar »

> And the React ecosystem tends to either lack typings or provide poor/broken typings.

React integrates really well with flow[1] (which is not surprising because they're both developed at Facebook) and in my experience flow's typesystem is more powerful (OCaml inspired) than TypeScript one (C# inspired):

- non-nullable types by default is a big deal (they added support for non-nullable types in TypeScript 2, but enabling it with `--strictNullChecks` is a breaking change, so I don't think many users have done the switch).

- the type checker is sometimes not strict enough to be sound [2].

[1] : https://flowtype.org

[2] : http://djcordhose.github.io/flow-vs-typescript/2016_hhjs.htm...

Post reply on HN