Angular 2 versus React • Hacker News Board

Re: Angular 2 versus React

#201

Post by dev360 » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 8:13 AM UTC

Kwastie wrote: post #19

plexicle wrote: post #9

To me it really feels like Polymer is taking all of the pros from both of these "libraries" or "frameworks" or whatever you want to call it and none of the cons. Why aren't we talking more about that? Polymer is a fraction of the size. It's one of several ways right now to write custom components. React and Angular2 do the same thing yet they are both bloated and force tons of tools and tech down your throat. For wha…

Why did Google create Polymer? Google isn't using it. This is almost the same 'problem' with "AngularJS by Google", it's almost never used by Google. Edit: The reason I like React more is the fact that Facebook uses it in a high traffic production setting. Edit 2: I think the whole Javascript (or framework) fatigue is just a 'transition problem'. Old tools are getting replaced by new tools, causing confusion..

> Javascript (or framework) fatigue is just a 'transition problem'

Exactly, same thing happened early on in Ruby/rails community.

Re: Angular 2 versus React

#202

Post by dev360 » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 9:24 AM UTC

ryanSrich wrote: post #111

onetwotree wrote: post #2

React's learning curve is tiny compared to Angular. With React, you need to understand the component API, which consists of about 5 methods that one uses regularly, and the top level API, which consists of 2 (or just 1 if you use ES6 class syntax to create components). And as the article points out, it's just JavaScript.

I had the complete opposite reaction. I learned a bit of React through a rails + react tutorial and I was lost pretty much the entire time. Having to write HTML using either JSX or the ReactDOM syntax was a complete nightmare. Granted the testing options of both beat out angular, but even at a surface level React just wasn't appealing.

I think that in order to start seeing the appeal, you have to have seen the alternative. Before angular, I was writing a lot of backbone apps, and generally, they were well organized and easy to maintain.

With angular, I've found that my apps have devolved into a huge tag soup very quickly. It didn't take me long to realize that the templating syntax was a huge part of what made angular suck really bad, and its like the article says: "Angular 2 continues to put 'JS' into HTML."

So to me, JSX is at the core of what makes React feel manageable, since I can use OO and encapsulation techniques of javascript to deal with complex rendering and still keep my code organized and easy to follow.

The more I think about it, angular reminds me a lot of Coldfusion in its approach.

Re: Angular 2 versus React

#203

Post by dev360 » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 9:44 AM UTC

rmanolis wrote: post #94

I prefer angular over react. 1) It is opinionated (wasting time for decisions is bad) 2) It is simpler to organize the code (it is MVC) 3) (click)="onSelect()" is simpler. You dont have to create an object with "bind" function like in react. 4) I dont want web designers mess with my code. So putting html on JS is bad decision.

> 1) It is opinionated (wasting time for decisions is bad)

I've wasted A LOT of time debating controller vs directive; asController syntax; service classes vs static factories vs rich models (resources); best way to deal with nested components etc. The problem is, most of the time I wasted with decisions in React was right in the beginning (deciding on how you control flow, how you build your app)... But with angular, all the pain points came late in the game when you thought you had done a helluva job designing a GREAT app, then you slowly come to realize its a tangled tag soup piece of crap.

> 2) It is simpler to organize the code (it is MVC)

If you call it MVC, then Id case it like this: mVc ... because the view portion of it is enormous! In fact, the very idea that they made the "template" do so many things is a huge reason why it could be considered a very bad flavor of MVC to begin with.

Re: Angular 2 versus React

#204

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 10:01 AM UTC

mt3ck wrote: post #175

PaybackTony wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point, I think I should of said "Dynamic" for lack of a better word. Interactive, it needn't be.

I guess I missed the memo. When did it happen that web markup suddenly got a need to be dynamic?

[deleted]

Re: Angular 2 versus React

#205

Post by mercer » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 10:55 AM UTC

eseehausen wrote: post #147

mercer wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do you want web designers to mess with your markup? Many of the projects I work on still involve the 'old-fashioned' server-side rendering approach with bits of jQuery for interactive elements. If a non-coder webdesigner were to mess with my markup, everything would break anyways. I guess what I'm saying is that I've worked on many types of projects in many kinds of environments, and whenever a front-end framewor…

I don't have a horse in this race, but do you think that learning JSX is going to be any easier for non-coders?

Not at all! I might not have expressed myself clearly...

The point I was trying to make is that JSX is significantly more convenient for coders like me, as the markup is is the trivial part and the logic is usually the complicated part. So a javascript-first approach benefits me tremendously over trying to figure out how to get my logic working around the logic-less templating systems, or over learning a html-like DSL as in the case of Angular or Vue.js.

I've even considered not using JSX at all (a bit like mithril.js). The only reason I still do is that I like the visual separation of code and markup, and that I like seeing what the the end result will look like (more or less).

So if the JSX approach is so much more convenient for coders (not all, but many), and if the types of projects where you use React tend to be too complex to involve non-coders writing html/css anyways (in my experience), why not just use JSX?

That said, I don't really have a horse in this race either, I guess, because I'll adjust my choices based on circumstances. A while back, for example, I used Ractive.js instead of React.js for a project, because Ractive.js uses mustache templates and simpler two-way binding (a bit like Knockout.js). Because of the particular circumstances and the relative lack of complexity of the app, I figured I'd optimize for what cheap(er) front-enders with less coding experience could take over from me, as I wasn't planning to stay on the project long-term.

Re: Angular 2 versus React

#206

Post by mercer » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 11:03 AM UTC

iLoch wrote: post #152

eseehausen wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a horse in this race, but do you think that learning JSX is going to be any easier for non-coders?

Honestly I wouldn't hire a web designer that can't code a little Javascript. It's been a while since knowing only HTML as a web designer has been acceptable. To answer your question though: they're probably about the same level of difficulty, and I don't think it's a great argument for vanilla/React/Angular because a person who doesn't understand code trying to modify stuff that is controlled by code is going to brea…

> I prefer JSX because it's not pulling wool over your eyes - you're building a JS app, not an HTML app - so let's stop pretending.

Yeah, that's what it really boils down to. Many of the principles we apply are holdovers from when we used HTML and CSS for what it was originally intended: pages with content.

The way I see it, HTML and CSS were not meant for any of these apps. But if we are going to 'abuse' these technologies, we might as well chuck out the rulebook and optimize for what apps need to do.

That said, please don't do this if what you're making is 'pages with content'!

Re: Angular 2 versus React

#207

Post by mercer » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 11:20 AM UTC

scotchoverwine wrote: post #159

As a new web developer, where do you draw the line between a web application rendered server side and a SPA? I'm trying to develop a web app for creating invoices for a niche market but in this case I don't see huge advantages for a SPA over rendering HTML server side, the added complexity of a SPA doesn't have that big of a reward, I still plan to separate the frontend and backend, for example, writing a HTTP API th…

Perhaps in the future there will be a time where an 'old-fashioned' server-side app is a bad idea, but right now I think it's still a perfectly valid approach, and even preferable in some cases.

Consider whether your app will actually benefit from being an SPA. Does it negatively impact the user experience to have page refreshes? Or does it provide significant benefits to do things client side? If the answer is 'no', you might as well take what is currently still easier and more standardized, and go for server-side.

But the next step is to ask these questions about parts of your app. In those cases using React or Vue or something similar for just those parts might be a good idea. And if you've already separated front- and back-end, it shouldn't be too difficult to realize (and it's a good reason to use React server-side even if that's all you use it for initially!).

Re: Angular 2 versus React

#208

Post by antoaravinth » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 11:26 AM UTC

eruditely wrote: post #193

antoaravinth wrote: post #178

If anyone is new to both frameworks Angular 2 or React; I would prefer React. I have learned React in a day. I can use my existing knowledge of js in React (for, if etc), whereas in angular learning those directives is still a pain (in Angular 2 as well). I love the fact how each component in React can be composed! Its just beauty!

What other tools do you use alongside it?

I used react-redux combo. Thats it. They both themselves are good enough for my project to get started.

Re: Angular 2 versus React

#209

Post by jbergens » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 12:21 PM UTC

spankalee wrote: post #108

grayrest wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> React and Angular2 do the same thing yet they are both bloated and force tons of tools and tech down your throat. For what? State control. The most important thing about a React app is that you can write your code to have every bit of application state inside a single variable. It gets you hot code loading, trivial testability, and session recording/replay. I can actually test the app without having to use selenium…

You can manage state like that with web components as well: store state in one root object, only pass state down the tree, only build DOM based on the given state, use events to communicate changes back up the tree. The end result is very React-like in behavior, but completely interoperable with other web components, and not require a framework at all.

This is what React does if you don't use Flux/Redux/something similar and it don't scale very well to medium sized or larger codebases.

Web Components hasn't been supported by all browsers (and probably still isn't) and has had some problems with grouping components and loading them. I can use React today but Web Components is something I might want to use in 2-3 years.

Re: Angular 2 versus React

#210

Post by spectrum1234 » Tue, Jan 05, 2016, 12:31 PM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #173

spectrum1234 wrote: post #169

It seems like Redux + React is clearly going to win out. What am I missing? Yes the ecosystem is constantly changing right now but the oscillations are getting smaller not bigger. In my opinion Redux is the highest level and most intuitive, just like React was for the view when it came out. It's only a matter of time.

Why does Redux imply React? I use Redux with virtual-dom and end up with far less bloat.

Interesting. Didn't know about that