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

231–240 of 279 posts

Re: Angular 2 Core

#231

Post by Cthulhu_ »

spion wrote: post #176
zghst wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever since reading Angular 2's goals, I put 2 and 2 together, the API was definitely going to have to change massively to accommodate ES6. I'm sure they're using Object.observe it just wasn't mentioned in the presentation.

This is not even ES6, its some weird abomination (AtScript) on top of ES6. We definitely wont be switching to Angular 2.0. Hello React.

I like how a lot of people see React as a full-on alternative to AngularJS. It's not, React is just for the view (think jQuery), you'll need other components or a lot of manual work to build a full application with React.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#232

Post by fetbaffe »

uptownJimmy wrote: post #97
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.

If Angular would become standard then the fast paced progress in browser technologies will definitely grind to a halt. It will be Pax Microsoft all over again.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#233

Post by fetbaffe »

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.

Yes, the Google Cargo cult is frightening. Things that previously where scorned at is now raised to the skies.

But we have to remember that is also a completely new generation of developers out there who have not lived thru the entire painful history of web development, so therefore the same mistakes will repeat it selves.

It should be obvious now by most rational people that Angular 1.x is a dead end and if you build your own architecture around it you will continue to dig yourselves a deeper and deeper hole that will become harder and harder to get up from.

Angular 2 looks more promising with it's modularity and that should be the lessoned learned.

The web is just a way too fast moving target that any framework can keep up with, because the idea of a framework is the opposite for fast moving progress, i.e. stabilization of risks. And thats why so many javascript frameworks have already died even thou the web is really young.

The road ahead must be modularity and not the the way of the monolithic frameworks. Interoperability and interchangeability. Things we ought to have learned after the Prototype.js years. Or after the Dojo years. Or after the ExtJS years. Or ...

Re: Angular 2 Core

#234

Post by coldtea »

nilliams wrote: post #127
kyllo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). So what? What is so bad about House and Door being "tightly coupled"? Here's a House constructor that can take an…

What you just wrote as a code example is Dependency Injection, it's just manual dependency injection as opposed to using an IOC container or any of the mechanisms Angular provides. I am very much in favour of the approach you posted. That's exactly how I write my code (I don't currently use Angular), but yep ... that's DI. As James Shore said 'Dependency Injection is a 25-dollar term for a 5-cent concept'. [1]. What…

>When I realized it was "passing stuff in" I wanted to shout, I have done that for years!

Well, it's the "automatic" part that is important, not just the DI.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#235

Post by uptownJimmy »

fetbaffe wrote: post #232
uptownJimmy wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If Angular would become standard then the fast paced progress in browser technologies will definitely grind to a halt. It will be Pax Microsoft all over again.

This was my thought, as well. On the one hand, I want to position myself where the jobs are plentiful. It's not a choice, but a necessity.

On the other hand, I lived through Pax Microsoft and it was often not pretty.

It's interesting living through times of viciously fast change in one's field of endeavor.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#236

Post by joeyspn »

I'm now wondering what will happen to other projects that have placed a huge bet in Angular 1.x, like the Ionic Framework for example...

Re: Angular 2 Core

#237

Post by Wintamute »

trumbitta2 wrote: post #79
Wintamute wrote: post #69

Every large opinionated framework is "overblown" (aka "scary") until you actually take the time to learn it and code a few large non-trivial projects with it. I've learnt more MVC frameworks than you can shake a stick at and Angular is hands down one of the best. Once you're comfortable with it you can fly and code things so quickly and cleanly, and it scales well into complex apps too. Angular is largely designed th…

TBH, I'm both amazed by the power and simplicity of Angular && mad at how difficult and unpredictable is to unit test services that use promises and/or depend on other services.

You can fully mock out those services and pass them into the component under test. Those mocks could return an immediately succeeding (or failing) promise for example. Hey presto, no uncertainty or weird promise handling code in your tests.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#238

Post by luikore »

kuni-toko-tachi wrote: post #184
nilliams wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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 re…

var prod_dependencies = { obj0: require('obj0'), obj1: require('obj1') }; var test_dependencies = { obj0: require('mockobj0'), obj1: require('mockobj1') }; var dependencies = test_dependencies; some_func(dependencies.obj0,dependencies.obj1); Javascript does not need Java-style dependency injection. Javascript's configuration language JSON is valid Javascript.

Not all JSON are valid javascript: http://timelessrepo.com/json-isnt-a-javascript-subset

Re: Angular 2 Core

#239

Post by jacquesm »

dodyg wrote: post #222
baddox wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did 1.0 used to mean? I thought that major version upgrades typically mean that backwards-incompatible API changes have been made.

It used to mean that it is stable and it will carry on working as far as it can to the future major versions or until it is end of line of the product. So I can understand if Angular 1.0 stopped working on Angular 4.0 or 5.0. Breaking apps just on one major revision number is really a bad way to manage frameworks.

It's what killed Drupal for me (and many others). Frameworks should provide for either a porting tool or backwards compatibility between major versions. Otherwise you alienate the people that trusted your in the first place.

Re: Angular 2 Core

#240

Post by jacquesm »

dodyg wrote: post #223
GhotiFish wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Well when it came to programs, one used to expect that older versions of the files used with that program would themselves be upgraded, or would just work. However, when it comes to languages, the major version number is used to indicate breaking changes. So where does angular lie on that continuum?

You are probably thinking Python 2 and Python 3. For languages like C#, you can compile C# 1.0 code on C# 6.0 compiler mostly just fine. I bet this applies to C as well.

Hard to compare languages and frameworks in this respect. I think a better comparison is frameworks and operating systems. Imagine every major release of the linux kernel killing backwards compatibility with all older binaries and software written.
Post reply on HN