Angular 5.0.0
blog.angular.io
Angular 5.0.0
1–10 of 189 posts
Re: Angular 5.0.0
#2From my colleagues, both front-end developers and full-stack developers, I've heard nothing but criticism of Angular >2.0.0. I would like to hear the other side. If you use fresh Angular, why?
Re: Angular 5.0.0
#3Has anyone had success using the AOT tools to build a package of reusable angular components? I was able to use AOT pretty easily for a stand-alone app, but keep running into issues when trying to create a shareable component, and there is not a lot of documentation around this.
Re: Angular 5.0.0
#4From my colleagues, both front-end developers and full-stack developers, I've heard nothing but criticism of Angular >2.0.0. I would like to hear the other side. If you use fresh Angular, why?
Typescript. When working in a shop with a large contingent of .NET developers, having a language that somewhat resembles what they are used to is a great asset.
Re: Angular 5.0.0
#5The more time I've spent with Angular 2+ and later the more it feels like a DSL to me than a Typescript framework, much more so than the, admittedly very limited, time I've spent with React and jQuery before that. That's not really a knock on it, I find it to be extremely productive for me which is why I haven't gotten away from it. I just don't think it does much to enhance my skillset in front-end development overall.
Re: Angular 5.0.0
#6From my colleagues, both front-end developers and full-stack developers, I've heard nothing but criticism of Angular >2.0.0. I would like to hear the other side. If you use fresh Angular, why?
I love it.
It is small if I want to, but it has lots of features if I need them.
I don't have to worry about 3rd party libraries, because the official router, forms modules, http client, material components, flex layout etc. are all high-quality.
The CLI not only helps with new projects, but also makes testing, linting, building, serving, generating new components/services/etc. easy.
Implementing lazy loading with the router was easy, so that only the modules that I need for a certain route get loaded and my home site isn't 500kb+ for no good reason.
It has a predictable release schedule.
Re: Angular 5.0.0
#7From my colleagues, both front-end developers and full-stack developers, I've heard nothing but criticism of Angular >2.0.0. I would like to hear the other side. If you use fresh Angular, why?
I love it. It is small if I want to, but it has lots of features if I need them. I don't have to worry about 3rd party libraries, because the official router, forms modules, http client, material components, flex layout etc. are all high-quality. The CLI not only helps with new projects, but also makes testing, linting, building, serving, generating new components/services/etc. easy. Implementing lazy loading with th…
> It is small if I want to
Did they finally fix it to be actually possible to make it small? I remember them quoting some ridiculous number, and none of my colleagues, nor I, could get it below a megabyte using the suggested methods, nor below a few hundred k for a hello world.
Re: Angular 5.0.0
#8From my colleagues, both front-end developers and full-stack developers, I've heard nothing but criticism of Angular >2.0.0. I would like to hear the other side. If you use fresh Angular, why?
When I used Angular 1, the two way binding was a breathe of fresh air. It was akin to when jQuery first hit the scene and you all of a sudden had selectors. There was a learning curve regarding the "Angular way" (think: $scope, controller, directive), but altogether I was happy with the result and the ideology.
I tried Angular 2 and it was a mess. It feels as though the ideology is fighting you every step of the way, but with no foreseeable benefit beyond the benefits of Angular 1. Angular 1 had some issues of course (mostly with scope) but it gave us a way of working around them (via, $rootScope, etc), but Angular 2 seems to have taken away (again, think $rootScope).
Around the time Ancular 3 came out (yes, a renaming of Angular 2), I moved over to vuejs and haven't looked back yet.
Re: Angular 5.0.0
#9From my colleagues, both front-end developers and full-stack developers, I've heard nothing but criticism of Angular >2.0.0. I would like to hear the other side. If you use fresh Angular, why?
Typescript. When working in a shop with a large contingent of .NET developers, having a language that somewhat resembles what they are used to is a great asset.
Dare I say - but you can use Typescript with other frameworks too.. just because it's built in here / there are more resources?
Re: Angular 5.0.0
#10From my colleagues, both front-end developers and full-stack developers, I've heard nothing but criticism of Angular >2.0.0. I would like to hear the other side. If you use fresh Angular, why?
When I used Angular 1, the two way binding was a breathe of fresh air. It was akin to when jQuery first hit the scene and you all of a sudden had selectors. There was a learning curve regarding the "Angular way" (think: $scope, controller, directive), but altogether I was happy with the result and the ideology. I tried Angular 2 and it was a mess. It feels as though the ideology is fighting you every step of the way,…
> When I used Angular 1, the two way binding was a breath of fresh air.
Yeah, to be honest, if you aren't suffering performance issues as a result of it, Angular 1 is very productive. Problems present themselves in applications with large views, or using esoteric low-performing features. Angular >2 should never have been called Angular. Even if they call it "Angular" instead of "AngularJS", everyone called AngularJS Angular to begin with. It's so utterly different that it doesn't even fit in the same places.