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

Angular 2 Core

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 279 posts

Re: Angular 2 Core

#91

Post by Bahamut »

mgkimsal wrote: post #67
kuni-toko-tachi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey pal, drop the chip on your shoulder. Just because AngularJS has wide adoption doesn't change the fact that it is an extremely poorly designed framework. I also refuse to consider AngularJS jobs. Many developers have had to suffer through bad frameworks like GWT because of industry trends. Those bruises are not badges of honor. ReactJS is a framework that is clearly better designed. Why waste time learning and suf…

... because jobs? I'm in agreement with your point, but... if 'the market' wants angular... 'the market' is going to have a hell of a time dealing with a mess in a couple of years when many of the decision makers that mandated angular move on to something else and leave piles of mess behind for someone else to clean up.

I don't think that problem is restricted to Angular - it's one that you see with when developers wrote unmodular code period. I saw it with legacy ExtJS code.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#92

Post by davidholmesnyc »

I feel that Angular changes too much in HTML to be considered useful for long term projects.The new syntax is also disturbing. My ideal MVC for front end utilizes regular javascript and html tags. At most just add data-ang-click="" something like that instead of "(click)" the latter isn't even valid HTML. Sometimes I think Angular is mainly popular because it's supported by Google. If any regular developer made these drastic changes in HTML with non valid tags and attributes people would not be happy with that project.

I know Angular has a lot of community support and I have built some side projects in Angular but I feel now too bloated with having their own standards instead of following normal HTML standards. That's just my 2 cents on it and i'm sure there are a ton of reason to use Angular but I just don't know if I can continue supporting a project that makes so many drastic changes to a standard. I don't want to make it sound like I have Angular hate here but i'm a big vanilla fan and it seems in order to build anything useful in Angular you have to throw out vanilla and use Angular's way even if vanilla is better. On most projects handlebars and correct proper design patterns in code is enough to keep HTML out of javascript and keep basic organization.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#93

Post by vayarajesh »

It took a lot of time for me to get the hang of AngularJS 1.x and now AngularJS 2 seems very promising but shifting along with the new syntax, programming logic is really painful..

They should provide a path to easily shift programmers thinking from 1.x to 2 (hopefully it is already in their roadmap)

Re: Angular 2 Core

#94

Post by Bahamut »

nawitus wrote: post #77
Jgrubb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's a horrible and overblown framework with a high barrier to entry Listen, if I can figure it out and get lots and lots of work done with it, it's neither horrible nor overblown and the barrier of entry was there but I got over it. By all means, keep ignoring it, but drop the shtick where you know better than thousands and thousands of us out here building things with it.

>if I can figure it out and get lots and lots of work done with it, it's neither horrible nor overblown That's a weird argument. Just because you think it's not horrible or overblown doesn't really mean much. That's just an opinion. I've worked full-time with AnguarJS over a year, and I know it pretty well. It's easily better than jQuery spaghetti code, and probably better than most data-binding frameworks. It has lo…

Angular 2 definitely aims to be more modular - the Angular team acknowledges the problem that it isn't modular enough itself. Stuff like di.js, watchtower.js, zone.js, etc. are all built with modularity in mind & are framework agnostic. I think once Angular hits 2.0 and it becomes highly modular, we are going to see a boom in development productivity. Some of what is currently in Angular is unique for JavaScript, such as the change listener pattern and dependency injection. These are things that we'd like to take advantage of with other libraries. Combining stuff like di.js with React sounds very appetizing to me.

In addition, it would appear that we would be able to use these libraries with Node.js as well.

I can only see this being a good thing.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#95

Post by Bahamut »

kuni-toko-tachi wrote: post #55
realusername wrote: post #47

I'm quite disappointed by this presentation, I see only new syntax everywhere for approximately zero benefit. There is not even any mention to the Object.observe integration which would be the most exiting feature to improve Angular apps. Angular looks and feels now like a Java framework, with ugly decorators and bloated APIs, that's really sad...

Agree 100%. Things like dependency injectors have no real place in JavaScript, where programmatic wiring and modules already solve the problem in an idiomatic way. Angulars modules factories services etc are absurd and attempt to reinvent what the language naturally provides.

It isn't quite a solved problem in the regular ecosystem. Currently importation is rigid - you end up testing the functionality of what you are importing instead of purely the logic of your modules. The tests are polluted with logic that really tests both the details of how an api provided by another library functions under the hood.

DI is the solution to that. It has every place in a language like JS, and I am excited with having it available.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#96

Post by cloverich »

colinramsay wrote: post #38
emilis_info wrote: post #28

Guys, relax and stop whining. You are probably wrong about what is going to happen with Angular, because you underestimate how massive Angular has become. I recently began searching for a new JavaScript job. I don't like Angular at all and I am skipping all positions that mention it. I have to skip ~90% of all ads. Think of it – 90% of companies that are expanding their web development use Angular. So, even if this c…

Is this right? I can't believe for a millisecond that 90% of all new JS jobs relate to Angular, it's a horrible and overblown framework with a high barrier to entry. Were you looking at a particular subset of jobs, a particular industry or in a particular location?

> it's a horrible and overblown framework with a high barrier to entry.

I'm honestly surprised how often I keep hearing about its high barrier to entry. I've worked on ~5 different MVC style web frameworks, all server side, over ~5 years of professional programming. I just started a front-end position using Angular for the last three months, and have found it pretty straight-forward to pick up. That is, the concepts I learned server-side have translated fairly cleanly to the front-end.

Most of the people I've seen struggle with the framework so far are those that didn't have that server side experience. Which isn't to say its required, but only to say some of the concepts they struggle the most with are concepts you need for any MVC style web framework - server side or front-end. Its not that they are that similar, but that they encounter and solve many of the same problems. Routing, separation of concerns, dependency injection, testing, getting what you want into the template, etc. And Angular isn't what you'd call a micro framework (see Django vs Flask or Bottle from Python world, for example). So of course Angular is large; it tries to solve alot of problems for you (how well it does so is another story).

Anyways, the take-away (from my point of view) is that much of the work that used to be done by server-side guys can now be done by front-end guys. So they have to learn all the same concepts and struggle with all the same problems to be effective.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#97

Post by uptownJimmy »

davidholmesnyc wrote: post #92

I feel that Angular changes too much in HTML to be considered useful for long term projects.The new syntax is also disturbing. My ideal MVC for front end utilizes regular javascript and html tags. At most just add data-ang-click="" something like that instead of "(click)" the latter isn't even valid HTML. Sometimes I think Angular is mainly popular because it's supported by Google. If any regular developer made these…

Would you be able to embrace Angular if it became a de facto standard? Because it seems pretty close to doing that. Interesting stuff.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#98

Post by zak_mc_kracken »

Even though this is still called "Angular", this new version has barely any resemblance with the previous one, it's really a totally new framework.

It's a bit sad to think that all this knowledge I have of Angular 1 is now obsolete but I'm excited to dive into this new framework. If it's half revolutionary as Angular 1 was, it's going to be a pretty interesting time.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#99

Post by nilliams »

kuni-toko-tachi wrote: post #55
realusername wrote: post #47

I'm quite disappointed by this presentation, I see only new syntax everywhere for approximately zero benefit. There is not even any mention to the Object.observe integration which would be the most exiting feature to improve Angular apps. Angular looks and feels now like a Java framework, with ugly decorators and bloated APIs, that's really sad...

Agree 100%. Things like dependency injectors have no real place in JavaScript, where programmatic wiring and modules already solve the problem in an idiomatic way. Angulars modules factories services etc are absurd and attempt to reinvent what the language naturally provides.

>> where programmatic wiring and modules already solve the problem in an idiomatic way

Can't agree with that. Not sure what you mean by 'programmatic wiring' as it sounds vague, but certainly modules do not solve the same problem that DI solves.

Modules, (assuming you mean stuff you require() or equivalent), provide module-level dependencies but do not provide object instances. For example, if an instance of House requires a Door it is not enough to just require('Door'). You still have to do the equivalent of `new Door()` in your House module to get an instance. By doing so within the House module you just tightly coupled House to Door (your House now knows how to create Doors).

DI allows you to provide an object with object instances it depends on without tightly coupling said object to those dependencies (pass a Door instance into a House instance, advantage being you can pass in any type of Door and House doesn't need to care - thanks polymorphism)!

I'm not sure that's a great explanation, but it's worth trying every now and then right?

You seem to be making the argument that the language provides alternatives, and it's true that in dynamic languages you can eschew some of the benefits of DI by doing monkey patching instead (e.g. to mock out an object's 'tightly coupled' dependencies during testing), but to myself and many OOP proponents DI leads to cleaner design and simpler tests.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#100

Post by nobleach »

davidholmesnyc wrote: post #92

I feel that Angular changes too much in HTML to be considered useful for long term projects.The new syntax is also disturbing. My ideal MVC for front end utilizes regular javascript and html tags. At most just add data-ang-click="" something like that instead of "(click)" the latter isn't even valid HTML. Sometimes I think Angular is mainly popular because it's supported by Google. If any regular developer made these…

> Sometimes I think Angular is mainly popular because it's supported by Google. If any regular developer made these drastic changes in HTML with non valid tags and attributes people would not be happy with that project.

This is a pretty interesting statement and I want to give it more thought. I've used Angular on plenty of projects and admittedly, It's felt a bit dirty to go back to spaghetti DOM that we worked for years to get rid of. All the books were saying to separate logic from our views. Now we're calling it declarative and it's acceptable again. I've been yelled at by other developers as if I should just forget the past few years and just get in line with what's currently the new hotness. Fine, I'm totally okay with embracing whatever is new and hot. But not just because it came from the same people that gave us Wave, Gears, GWT, etc. Let's not get involved in hero worship. All of those technologies had great ideas, yet were (overall) marked as failures. I'd love to have seen this same proposal come from some random Susan/Joe on their GitHub and see if it had been laughed off the stage for the same reasons I mentioned earlier.

Post reply on HN