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

Angular 2: Built on TypeScript

blogs.msdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 235 posts

Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #45
usingpond wrote: post #6

As if we didn't have enough reason to move on from Angular. Now you need to learn Typescript to contribute or grok the source files?

For some reason, I doubt that people here would be complaining about learning a language that resembles the next version of Javascript if it didn't come from Microsoft.

> For some reason, I doubt that people here would be complaining about learning a language that resembles the next version of Javascript if it didn't come from Microsoft.

Why? Sure, people here complain about Microsoft, but people here also complain about (1) novel things in domains where they think the existing thing is good enough (which, for many, JS probably is), and (2) things, new or old, that they see as fundamentally flawed (which, for many here, JS or any "next version" that isn't radically different, is.)

So, I suspect people here would be complaining about having to learn a language that resembles the next version of JS whether or not Microsoft is involved. Maybe not exactly the same set of people that are complaining with Microsoft involved, but people here nonetheless.

Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript

#102

Post by usingpond »

dmarg wrote: post #19
usingpond wrote: post #6

As if we didn't have enough reason to move on from Angular. Now you need to learn Typescript to contribute or grok the source files?

I am pretty sure that TypeScript just adds type safety and is optional. I don't see this as a huge negative and I actually see this as a positive. Just curious, what and why are all your reasons to move away from Angular?

- Not-so-great documentation.

- Lengthy learning curve.

- Not concerned with performance at all (can be a nightmare on mobile devices with low RAM).

- Google's history of throwing away and/or deprecating projects, (see Angular v1).

- I still have yet to see a Google website using Angular in any large capacity.

- Ecosystem lock-in. It tries to do a LOT of stuff, and you generally need to be doing all these things the Angular Way™.

Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript

#103

Post by [deleted] »

skeeterbug wrote: post #93

"Special shout out to Yehuda Katz, who helped us design the annotation+decorator proposal which helped make this work possible." How in the world does this man keep up with all these projects? He needs to write a book on motivation.

[deleted]

Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript

#104

Post by AlwaysBCoding »

Firegarden wrote: post #84
aikah wrote: post #46

I don't care what people say Angular totally suffers from the second system effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect

I have specifically avoided angular because I feel like it's a monster in that you are so tied to learning and understanding it's proprietary system. I too have moved directly to react. Can anyone comment on how the skills learned by learning Angular can be applied any where else?

You're 100% right. Once you're in Angular-land you are completely tied to the framework. You don't think about "how can I make X in my domain happen?" you think about "how do I make X in Angular happen". This coupled with the horrific Angular docs make it really tough to justify using from a productivity standpoint.

I've moved to React as well and feel it's a 10x boost in productivity because I'm constantly thinking in my domain and not in a framework.

Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript

#106

Post by Sammi »

ensmotko wrote: post #74
WalterSear wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not unless you try to make it look like Java.

To be fair, JavaScript started out as a language that looks like Java. "JavaScript was designed with Java's syntax and standard library in mind. In particular, all Java keywords were reserved in original JavaScript, JavaScript's standard library follows Java's naming conventions, and JavaScript's Math and Date objects are based on classes from Java 1.0" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#JavaScript_and_Java

That cherry picking you just made just completely reversed what was actually said in that article:

"A common misconception is that JavaScript is similar or closely related to Java. It is true that both have a C-like syntax (the C language being their most immediate common ancestor language). They also are both typically sandboxed (when used inside a browser), and JavaScript was designed with Java's syntax and standard library in mind. In particular, all Java keywords were reserved in original JavaScript, JavaScript's standard library follows Java's naming conventions, and JavaScript's Math and Date objects are based on classes from Java 1.0,[116] but the similarities end there.

The differences between the two languages are more prominent than their similarities. Java has static typing, while JavaScript's typing is dynamic. Java is loaded from compiled bytecode, while JavaScript is loaded as human-readable source code. Java's objects are class-based, while JavaScript's are prototype-based. Finally, Java did not support functional programming until Java 8, while JavaScript does, as it contains many features based on Scheme."

And read this part too, it has much relevant info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript#Beginnings_at_Netsca...

Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript

#107

Post by EugeneOZ »

outsidetheparty wrote: post #44

My main feeling about this is not so much about typeScript (which, meh, some syntax sugar I don't care about, and tooltips for an IDE I don't use) -- more it's that just the mere whiff of Microsoft's involvement will be enough to snuff out remaining developer interest in Angular 2.

There are not so many devs who hate MS just for being MS. Mostly kids.

Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript

#108

Post by Sammi »

EugeneOZ wrote: post #107
outsidetheparty wrote: post #44

My main feeling about this is not so much about typeScript (which, meh, some syntax sugar I don't care about, and tooltips for an IDE I don't use) -- more it's that just the mere whiff of Microsoft's involvement will be enough to snuff out remaining developer interest in Angular 2.

There are not so many devs who hate MS just for being MS. Mostly kids.

Even less in these days of open source glory.

I remember being a MS hater as a kid. Now I hate all the big software companies. Just some more than others. And MS is heading in the right direction these days, so I'm optimistic. Hopefully it'll stick.

Re: Angular 2: Built on TypeScript

#110

Post by discreteevent »

bdcravens wrote: post #97
discreteevent wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically your comment could be taken as a classic example of the kind of FUD Microsoft used to spread. You give examples from the past that, you admit, clearly don't apply. You talk about "feels less open" when it is factually not. You speculate on others (who are they?) being pushed past a tipping point. Doubt, doubt, doubt and fear, fear, fear when in fact there's nothing you can point to in reality to back it up…

Your response seems defensive. I'm not speaking to Microsoft's motives, but to the psychology of developers who have been exposed to "embrace, extend, extinguish" for many years. They don't deserve trust just because "we're nice now, we promise". The same way that Google's shuttering of services over and over earns them a bit of discomfort amongst their users.

"deserve's got nothing to do with it". The source is open and licenced. If you make technical decisions based on this kind of emotion you will waste a lot of time going round in circles. Because once you start looking for the spooks they're everywhere.

Technical forums ain't what they used to be. The problem for me is that this kind of Tarot card thinking is also now to be found in your local workplace. But there really isn't time for this if you are trying to build things. Do you want type checking in a language that's very close to js or not? If so then just get on with it.

Post reply on HN