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

Angular 2.0

blog.angularjs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 169 posts

Re: Angular 2.0

#141

Post by camus2 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #110
anton-107 wrote: post #97

> Dependency Injection is still a key differentiator between Angular and other client side frameworks Why not just take Require.JS and use it as a dependency injector, like any other client-side frameworks allow you to do? IMO Angular is trying too hard to be everything, while it is now de facto a template system with an excellent support of custom directives and two-way data-binding. For example, Angular could be a…

Require.JS is a service locator. It's not an inversion of control dependency injector. You can swap in a different service locator for your tests, but it's messier than just directly passing in different dependencies for your tests.

RequireJS is not a service locator,it's a module loader. It doesnt instanciate anything.AngularJS DI IS a service locator, not a dependency injection container.

Re: Angular 2.0

#142

Post by bmm6o »

ulisesrmzroche wrote: post #109
Hovertruck wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I never understood how JQuery and JS were just dumped the past 3-4 years in favor of all thse complex frameworks like AngularJS, Ember, etc..." Well, you can't have Angular without JS so we'll focus on the point of jQuery here. jQuery does a few things really well – so well that Angular itself uses jQuery (or jqLite by default). angular.element(selector) returns a jQuery object. Angular also does a few things well.…

Ok, cool. if Angular returns a jQuery object then its proof that it uses jQuery quite extensively. So does Ember.

There was a similar discussion last week. What I said then was that a lot of the things you would use jQuery for have a different solution in Angular: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7396016.

Re: Angular 2.0

#143

Post by xweb »

haberman wrote: post #112
josteink wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While "cool" and "clever" and any other half-positive adjective you like, it does mean things will literally be hell to debug until native ES6 support is available in current browsers. I thought the internals of Angular already had a reputation for being pretty horrible and indecipherable already. I doubt this will improve on any of that criticism.

> things will literally be hell to debug The word "literally" has officially lost all meaning.

What do you mean by 'The word "literally"'? I don't understand.

Re: Angular 2.0

#144

Post by lutusp »

xweb wrote: post #143
haberman wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> things will literally be hell to debug The word "literally" has officially lost all meaning.

What do you mean by 'The word "literally"'? I don't understand.

He may mean the word no longer has a clear meaning -- it also means "figuratively". Which means it can't be relied on to have any meaning at all.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually

2: in effect : virtually

Re: Angular 2.0

#145

Post by skeletonjelly »

xweb wrote: post #143
haberman wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> things will literally be hell to debug The word "literally" has officially lost all meaning.

What do you mean by 'The word "literally"'? I don't understand.

Err..Am I missing a joke? I think they literally mean the word "literally"

Re: Angular 2.0

#146

Post by lutusp »

skeletonjelly wrote: post #145
xweb wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by 'The word "literally"'? I don't understand.

Err..Am I missing a joke? I think they literally mean the word "literally"

That may be, but the rug has been pulled out from under "literally". One will never again be able to assert something ... literally ... and expect to be believed.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually

2 : in effect : virtually

Re: Angular 2.0

#147

Post by TheHegemon »

thatsar_ wrote: post #134
jimktrains2 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the blind who use screen readers or braille displays? Why should the page become so bloated that I can't read simple text simply?

I don't have first-hand experience, but my impression is that modern screen readers shouldn't have too much trouble with simple JavaScript like this. Could anybody with experience confirm/deny?

According to a recent podcast I listened to[1] about a blind Software user, it seemed like there is a lot of issues with the current generation of Screen Readers. This includes issues with JS.

1.http://hanselminutes.com/413/im-a-blind-software-technician-...

Re: Angular 2.0

#148

Post by ninkendo »

marknutter wrote: post #120
fiatjaf wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Please share your experiences. I don't understand what's the utility of event emitters if not for serving as glue to all the separate components of an app. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong. It's definitely one way to solve it. I just find it harder to jump into a project with heavy reliance on global events and be able to quickly understand what's going on. It gets even harder if you have events firing other events.

> I just find it harder to jump into a project with heavy reliance on global events

Harder than what?

Re: Angular 2.0

#149

Post by function_seven »

lutusp wrote: post #146
skeletonjelly wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err..Am I missing a joke? I think they literally mean the word "literally"

That may be, but the rug has been pulled out from under "literally". One will never again be able to assert something ... literally ... and expect to be believed. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally 1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually 2 : in effect : virtually

I've taken to repeating it twice. For example, "When the board saw the CEO's plans for the company-wide reorganization, they literally-literally cut him off at the knees"

(As in, they drew a sword and severed his limbs, such that literal-literal blood was everywhere)

Very sad.

Re: Angular 2.0

#150

Post by dllthomas »

lutusp wrote: post #144
xweb wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by 'The word "literally"'? I don't understand.

He may mean the word no longer has a clear meaning -- it also means "figuratively". Which means it can't be relied on to have any meaning at all. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally 1 : in a literal sense or manner : actually 2: in effect : virtually

Well, in either case it is meant to strengthen.
Post reply on HN