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

Angular 5.0.0

blog.angular.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 189 posts

Re: Angular 5.0.0

#121

Post by baristaGeek »

pygy_ wrote: post #89
eric_b wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Angular 2 will not help your team deliver valuable web experiences to customers any more quickly or reliably than Angular 1. Probably almost certainly the opposite. I'd argue most teams, if they're willing to go all-in on an SPA framework (which for most apps is a waste of time and money imo) would be better off with React + TSX. Edit: Vue is probably closer to the "Angular way" with databinding, but component to com…

Vue has one big advantage over React for an Angular shop: the views are often trivial to port, while JSX is further syntactically from Angular templates.

Well, being able to reuse other people's software (number of npm packages available for the library/framework) is an important variable when choosing a tool.

Re: Angular 5.0.0

#122

Post by baristaGeek »

Glyptodon wrote: post #27
Yabood wrote: post #14

This rapid pace of major releases is a little scary. We're stuck running Angular 1.x because there's no reasonable upgrade path for us. We're a .NET shop and really like Angular, but after the 2.x cluster fuck, we're now thinking about going with something else entirely.

It's not just Angular. To me it feels like everything in the JS world releases way faster than it's reasonable to keep up with these days.

Which is why we'll all be compiling from Elm to JS in the near future. Or at least I hope so...

Re: Angular 5.0.0

#123

Post by baristaGeek »

maxpert wrote: post #47

Have recently moved system from TS + Angular 1 to Angular 1.5 and then to Angular 2 (took us solid 1 year and you can still see some traces of older code), by time we finished move to 2, Angular 4 was released! And now this! This is WTF moment of my life.

HttpClientModule is probably one of the most visible incompatibilities, and it's one that is worth the migration process.

Re: Angular 5.0.0

#124

Post by tptacek »

throwanem wrote: post #83
tptacek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, the React ecosystem is full of stuff that changes gratuitously --- but my feeling is the rate of change on that stuff is usually inversely proportional to its utility. For instance: I'm not entirely sure why anyone uses an add-on router library.

...instead of hand-rolling as per e.g. https://medium.freecodecamp.org/you-might-not-need-react-rou... ? Asking because I'm just getting into React, and not really clear on best practice yet. You seem to know a thing and have an opinion; will you share them?

Yes. There's a continuum of routing needs in React apps. If you're not strictly an SPA, you don't need it at all; the browser already does it for you. For a lot of straightforward SPAs, the most basic "display this component based on current tab" works. Past that, a "real router" is just a small piece of code that looks at window.location to decide which component to render, and a Link that knows how to use the history API.

I don't understand why people bloody their foreheads on react-router. The thing it is doing is simple enough to re-do by hand in any application.

You see the same thing with flux implementations: flux libraries change rapidly, because there's not that much to the underlying concept and it's easy to mess with them. But most apps probably don't need flux at all.

Re: Angular 5.0.0

#125

Post by mmcnl »

eric_b wrote: post #32
Yabood wrote: post #14

This rapid pace of major releases is a little scary. We're stuck running Angular 1.x because there's no reasonable upgrade path for us. We're a .NET shop and really like Angular, but after the 2.x cluster fuck, we're now thinking about going with something else entirely.

Angular 2 will not help your team deliver valuable web experiences to customers any more quickly or reliably than Angular 1. Probably almost certainly the opposite. I'd argue most teams, if they're willing to go all-in on an SPA framework (which for most apps is a waste of time and money imo) would be better off with React + TSX. Edit: Vue is probably closer to the "Angular way" with databinding, but component to com…

Vue and React are 99% similar with databinding. Vue/React are basically the same looking at it from an Angular perspective.

Re: Angular 5.0.0

#126

Post by mmcnl »

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #26
Yabood wrote: post #14

This rapid pace of major releases is a little scary. We're stuck running Angular 1.x because there's no reasonable upgrade path for us. We're a .NET shop and really like Angular, but after the 2.x cluster fuck, we're now thinking about going with something else entirely.

Vue.js can be a good option for shops coming from Angular 1.x.

I don't get why people say this. Vue and Angular 1.x are only similar when you're comparing the templating engines. But how much of the work migrating to React or Vue actually involves porting the view? I think that's not a very substantial amount compared to the application logic.

I've worked with all three, and I would say that Vue and React are for more similar than Angular and Vue.

Re: Angular 5.0.0

#127

Post by mmcnl »

ben_jones wrote: post #55
pythonaut_16 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vue.js can be a good option for shops coming from Angular 1.x.

I love Vue. I prefer it to React and Angular. But once you get to customizing your use-case (like adding Typescript, State management, or Design frameworks) you start relying on increasingly smaller projects with less and less "maturity". For example I make heavy use of the vue-typed library[1] but it has 47 stars and two contributors. [1]: https://github.com/vue-typed/vue-typed

That's true, but I dislike "essential" third-party projects anyway. Part of the reason I like Vue so much is because of the "official" Vue + vuex + vue-router combo (for React you have to use third-party libraries for state management and routing).

Re: Angular 5.0.0

#128

Post by ivankolev »

vilmosi wrote: post #115
FLGMwt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's surprising to me! My main complaints of Angular 2+ are around testing, but I've had nothing but love for React testing (enzyme, chai, karma) EDIT: whoops, mistyped. We don't use karma anymore in our React testing stack. It's mocha now.

Chai and karma aren't specific to react. I remember using them with angular 1.x back in the day.

I thought Karma was specific to Angular in fact!

Re: Angular 5.0.0

#129

Post by [deleted] »

interlocutor wrote: post #17

Lack of compile-time checks for the template (and embedded expressions) is a major limitation of Angular. This may be OK for small projects. For large projects with many developers this is a huge problem. Here's what happens: a developer modifies code he's not familiar with. He introduces a bug due to a typo. He builds the code without errors, and runs the application, and everything seems to be OK. The bug is not fo…

[deleted]

Re: Angular 5.0.0

#130

Post by PKop »

throwanem wrote: post #83
tptacek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, the React ecosystem is full of stuff that changes gratuitously --- but my feeling is the rate of change on that stuff is usually inversely proportional to its utility. For instance: I'm not entirely sure why anyone uses an add-on router library.

...instead of hand-rolling as per e.g. https://medium.freecodecamp.org/you-might-not-need-react-rou... ? Asking because I'm just getting into React, and not really clear on best practice yet. You seem to know a thing and have an opinion; will you share them?

Checkout Next.js (React based framework) if you want to worry the least about routing, and just default to a route per page model.

Next also makes it easy to do server rendering and/or pre-rendering of routes.

Post reply on HN