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

AngularJS 1.3.0

angularjs.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: AngularJS 1.3.0

#71

Post by regularjack »

junto wrote: post #49
jbigelow76 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's frankly why I like big and opinionated frameworks such as Angular. That's weird that you say that Angular is opinionated, or maybe it's not. When I first started hearing about Angular, the story was that Angular was very opinionated compared to Backbone which made you figure everything out on your own. Then as Ember gelled Angular became the un-opinionated framework that left the developers to their own devic…

Ember makes strong opinions about the backend webservices as well as the front end. I don't think Angular does that.

Ember Data is opinionated about the backend, Ember itself isn't. You can use Ember without Ember Data, as is the case with Discourse, one of the largest Ember apps out there.

http://eviltrout.com/2013/03/23/ember-without-data.html

Re: AngularJS 1.3.0

#72

Post by xsace »

noelwelsh wrote: post #54
rmsaksida wrote: post #31

I feel Angular is better than almost everything out there but still not quite right. It seems way too complex for what it does, and the syntax looks like somebody vomited all over your code. Does two-way databinding have to be so awkward? Angular does help you in writing maintainable code (which is vital for JavaScript - dealing with large JS codebases is hard), but it also ties you to a technology which is probably…

I prefer React to Angular -- I find it much simpler to work with. I wrote up some thoughts here: http://noelwelsh.com/programming/2014/08/17/angularjs-vs-rea...

Used both a lot. I agree the above statement.

Re: AngularJS 1.3.0

#73

Post by [deleted] »

lukasm wrote: post #69
rmsaksida wrote: post #31

I feel Angular is better than almost everything out there but still not quite right. It seems way too complex for what it does, and the syntax looks like somebody vomited all over your code. Does two-way databinding have to be so awkward? Angular does help you in writing maintainable code (which is vital for JavaScript - dealing with large JS codebases is hard), but it also ties you to a technology which is probably…

I had the same feeling, but after 6 months is seems more natural than jQuery. It's kind of like git. You have to change your mindset coming from SVN.

[deleted]

Re: AngularJS 1.3.0

#74

Post by Cthulhu_ »

JDDunn9 wrote: post #44
rmsaksida wrote: post #31

I feel Angular is better than almost everything out there but still not quite right. It seems way too complex for what it does, and the syntax looks like somebody vomited all over your code. Does two-way databinding have to be so awkward? Angular does help you in writing maintainable code (which is vital for JavaScript - dealing with large JS codebases is hard), but it also ties you to a technology which is probably…

> Does two-way databinding have to be so awkward? The verbose parts have nothing to do with the data-binding. The dependency injection is there for testability ( https://docs.angularjs.org/guide/unit-testing ), you have to use array notation because JS changes variable names upon minification. The rest is just objects being used to set up options.

Array notation is only required if you're not actually up to date on modern build tooling - ng-annotate [0] will automatically generate array notation DI statements in most of your application code.

[0] https://github.com/olov/ng-annotate

Re: AngularJS 1.3.0

#75

Post by Cthulhu_ »

hippich wrote: post #35
pixie_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Angular wasn't endorsed by Google would it be as popular as it is?

After working for some time on angular project, I got a conspiracy theory: Google bought this company and threw angularjs to masses so they get all excited and spin wheels reimplementing stuff already done elsewhere, while Google will keep building products :) I am joking of course, but each joke always have part of truth in it..

Minus the fact that AngularJS was developed as a Google internal project / by a Googler / for a Google service (their support / help pages iirc), after they struggled for months building it.

Re: AngularJS 1.3.0

#76

Post by Cthulhu_ »

JanezStupar wrote: post #61
wiradikusuma wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err.. 1. I admit Angular documentation sucks, but that's not atypical in any open source. It's getting way better btw, and there are tons of resources from 3rd party. 2. Which toolchain are you referring to? If we're talking Web/JavaScript (where Angular is for), I can say the toolchain e.g. Grunt is quite recent. 3. I somewhat agree with this. We can use e.g. Chrome Dev tools and Batarang (Angular Chrome plugin), bu…

2. Templates and existing JavaScript code - i.e. Bootstrap, jQuery, templating languages and other existing app components. With Backbone you can easily use any JavaScript library - because it itself is just JavaScript. I really don't like how angular forces everything to have a ng-something derivative. 5. Angular is not free because it is this monolyth that only the sage men within the temple of G can comprehend. Th…

2. Nothing's stopping anyone from using 3rd party libraries within an AngularJS application - using React for the view layer, for example. Angular encourages the use to separate concerns (mainly DOM manipulation) via directives, instead of mixing that logic into other parts of your application (like vanilla JS, jQuery and Backbone tend to do).

5. You're wrong, and your argument is invalid. It's open source, legible, modular and fully comprehensible if anyone bothers to dive into it.

Re: AngularJS 1.3.0

#77

Post by Cthulhu_ »

JanezStupar wrote: post #51

I don't like Angular. Everybody likes it but I don't. It feels like 2004 all over again. SOAP! SOAP! XML! GWT! ColdFusion!!!!1onene!!!1 I also don't like working with Google toolchain, because for a company full of smartest dudes on the planet it certainly seems like these dudes don't care about their customers. Below is a list of reasons why I dislike Angular. 1. GAE documentation sucks, GoLang documentation sucks a…

1. GAE and GoLang is neither here nor there; Angular's documentation was in need of a lot of improvement when I started using it a year ago, but since then they've been working hard on it. (I found myself in the list of contributors actually, all I did was make a small edit to the documentation). If the documentation sucks - and you seem to know what's wrong with it - edit it. There's a big shiny "IMPROVE THIS DOC" button on every documentation page.

2. As others mentioned, what toolchain? At my current project we've got the ol' Grunt toolchain set up, generated by Yeoman, and customized to our needs - no Google involvement there, and it's a massive improvement over the old toolchain, which was an assortiment of tools run from Maven (often in the old Java JS runtime, which was slow)

3. I've yet to encounter any issue in our Angular projects that need debugging; writing proper unit tests (and Angular allows that) and not doing crazy stuff helps a lot in that respect.

4. Such as? Every framework introduces its own semantics; before, I used Backbone, which has routers (which were actually controllers), models and collections (where collections were a subset of models containing models, what?), and views (which often served as controllers as well, creating the ViewController thing). I don't see your point.

5. Yes it is. MIT license, open source, hosted on Github - the comparison with Java probably couldn't be more skewed.

The comparison with other frameworks is somewhat relevant, in that it's a full-scale application framework - not jQuery with a structure layer on top like for example Backbone is. The upsides of that is that it's much easier to achieve the same thing (trust me, I'm rebuilding a 60K Backbone project in Angular with a factor 10 less code required), it's much easier to develop, test and maintain (and with a 12-man development team of varying skill levels you need that), etc. Not to mention, like I said, unlike ColdFusion or Java or Silverlight or whatever, it's an open source project from the start - not something ditched to the community after the company itself lost interest.

Re: AngularJS 1.3.0

#78

Post by Cthulhu_ »

rmsaksida wrote: post #31

I feel Angular is better than almost everything out there but still not quite right. It seems way too complex for what it does, and the syntax looks like somebody vomited all over your code. Does two-way databinding have to be so awkward? Angular does help you in writing maintainable code (which is vital for JavaScript - dealing with large JS codebases is hard), but it also ties you to a technology which is probably…

How are you finding it awkward? It's the simplest way of getting data into a template that I know of - assign a value to a scope and done, no hassle. And vice-versa, too.

(disclaimer: I come from Backbone, where we did all data and event binding by hand)

Re: AngularJS 1.3.0

#79

Post by bsaul »

jbergens wrote: post #59
ChaosPony wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does AngularDart compare to AngularJS, on a feature level? Does it have all or most of the features from the new 1.3 release?

The´re a bit different. Actaully the AngularDart has features that 1.3 don't have, like the new router, and I'm sure there is something in 1.3 that don't exist in AngularDart. But AngularDart seems to be the more "advanced" one.

Does using AngularDart means you can code with types and get decent auto-completion ? I know it can compile to regular JS, but does it really works well with non-chrome browser ?

Re: AngularJS 1.3.0

#80

Post by rmsaksida »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #78
rmsaksida wrote: post #31

I feel Angular is better than almost everything out there but still not quite right. It seems way too complex for what it does, and the syntax looks like somebody vomited all over your code. Does two-way databinding have to be so awkward? Angular does help you in writing maintainable code (which is vital for JavaScript - dealing with large JS codebases is hard), but it also ties you to a technology which is probably…

How are you finding it awkward? It's the simplest way of getting data into a template that I know of - assign a value to a scope and done, no hassle. And vice-versa, too. (disclaimer: I come from Backbone, where we did all data and event binding by hand)

Sorry for not clarifying. What I find awkward about it is the Angular-specific baggage and the syntax, which just got more complex.

Stuff like ng-model-options="{ updateOn: 'blur' }" is far from straightforward. I guess you could do ng-model-options="model.modelOptions" and define the behavior in the controller, but then your controller would be handling far more than it should. By the way, wouldn't a separate directive be more appropriate for this? ng-update-on="blur" is more palatable.

And in my experience with Angular, it's never just "assign a value to a scope and done", except for the most trivial situations. When you leave these behind, you have to think about scope hierarchies. You have to watch your watchers. When you use something like angular-translate, you have to carefully consider synchronicity issues and the performance drawbacks of each way to bind your models. And so on. I love the power and flexibility that Angular gives you, but I wish there was a simpler way for it to do its magic.

Post reply on HN