this just in: Ember.js Fanboi tries AngularJs-- says it sucks because it's not like Ember.js
AngularJS versus Ember
141–150 of 163 posts
Re: AngularJS versus Ember
#142I just have the "feeling" that with Discourse being written in EmberJS, people are mindlessly going to flock to it without really looking at anything else. And even if AngularJS really is better, it will be left behind. Just because...
Angular and Backbone are currently the frontrunners, by a _lot_.
Yes, but I'm afraid it might go the RoR way. Rails started off by disrupting the web-dev space and positioning itself as an alternative to Java. It really pushed the overall web-dev space forward.
However, today, I feel, Python is more popular than Ruby (at least in my part of the world) because of various other reasons. Even though a lot of web frameworks are doing things the Rails way.
Re: AngularJS versus Ember
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Angular wasn't invented at Google (it was invented by Angular company, which got acqui-hired by Google) and some Google staffers have mentioned Angular breaks a few documented Google rules for creating Javascript MVC frameworks. I suspect Angular's popularity has more to do with a logo than features. - The unnecessary new module system is a massive waste of time and obviously doesn't play well with others - It's the…
According to angular's FAQ: > Q: Why is this project called "AngularJS"? Why is the namespace called "ng"? > A: Because HTML has Angular brackets and "ng" sounds like "Angular". http://docs.angularjs.org/misc/faq sigh
Yes, I (would have thought quite obviously, but perhaps not) know that.
The fact there's an FAQ question on an abbreviation should tell you something.
Thanks for the sigh though, and the substantive response to the points raised in the body of my post, it really adds a lot.
Re: AngularJS versus Ember
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
Angular wasn't invented at Google (it was invented by Angular company, which got acqui-hired by Google) and some Google staffers have mentioned Angular breaks a few documented Google rules for creating Javascript MVC frameworks. I suspect Angular's popularity has more to do with a logo than features. - The unnecessary new module system is a massive waste of time and obviously doesn't play well with others - It's the…
Angular went open source before it turned into 'official google'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AngularJS#Development_history
Yep. My issue is that it's 'by Google' according to the logo. As you mentioned, it was designed by GetAngular.
Promoting it as 'by Google' is misleading.
Re: AngularJS versus Ember
#145As a gentle reminder, Fred Brooks said "there are no silver bullets" in software ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet ). Even without knowing the details of this article, I believe it's unlikely that "not even close" is at all accurate. There likely are advantages, but from my experience (10k+ LOC apps on each Ember, Angular, and Backbone) no one MVC (or MV-) framework is inherently better. They all have s…
thanks for the mention of restangular, i didn't know about it until now.
Re: AngularJS versus Ember
#146What I REALLY want is a relatively clean implementation of MV* that I can re-use all parts client and server.. NodeJS is the natural platform, but I haven't really seen much that makes reusing rendering, models and business logic client and server to a natural point. I know that there are people working on this, but I think that getting closer to a solution that can easily converge on such re-use for really dynamic a…
Agreed - server side rendering for the first time you hit a website, pushstate and client side rendering for subsequent navigation makes for some very smooth UX.
- Derby.JS is one such a full-stack framework.
- There's also Meteor but this has a little less community support.
- Eyebrow.JS is coming (there's a number of blog posts and talk videos) but I'm not sure if it's released yet.
Re: AngularJS versus Ember
#147I just have the "feeling" that with Discourse being written in EmberJS, people are mindlessly going to flock to it without really looking at anything else. And even if AngularJS really is better, it will be left behind. Just because...
It won't be left behind, it's from Google.
It's maintained by Google, but it's from Angular company (an online JSON storage service). The 'by Google' in it's name doesn't mean it's designedto be 'Google's JavaScript MVC' and I know Google employees who think expressly otherwise.
Re: AngularJS versus Ember
#148One is 272kb and the other is 78kb. This should be noted at the beginning of any article making such a comparison.
Seriously? I mean, _really_? 200k? This isn't 1998 any more. If it was 2MB, you might have something resembling a point.
It's not the size, it's the footprint. And it very much matters on mobile.
Re: AngularJS versus Ember
#149One is 272kb and the other is 78kb. This should be noted at the beginning of any article making such a comparison.
It's 55kb gzipped. Angular is 30kb. Does that 25kb make all the difference?
Yes. The footprint matters. All that JS has to be parsed by the browser. The difference is not negligible.
Re: AngularJS versus Ember
#150Can you explain what functionality Angular is missing that makes it a less complete framework than Ember? This premise keeps getting repeated here in the form of Angular being "simpler" -- if it's more simple, but offers the same functionality, I'd take that any day.
Nested views aren't in Angular. Also Angular doesn't really have models. It has data and dirty checking, but nothing a Rails dev would recognize as a model.
can agree with the fact that angular models are really left up to you, but stating that angular can't do "nested views" just shows your ignorance