2 years with Angular
fse.guru
2 years with Angular
1–10 of 216 posts
Re: 2 years with Angular
#2I confess I am an Angular fan.
But this article is not Angular specific at all, it stays on a very high-level. Replace the word Angular with any other web framework and the article would still make perfect sense.
Not that the article does not have some value, just that it has very little to do with its title.
Re: 2 years with Angular
#3I confess I am an Angular fan. But this article is not Angular specific at all, it stays on a very high-level. Replace the word Angular with any other web framework and the article would still make perfect sense. Not that the article does not have some value, just that it has very little to do with its title.
It would make sense but it wouldn't be true. And the linked articles of "the bad parts" are pretty Angular specific.
Re: 2 years with Angular
#4I confess I am an Angular fan. But this article is not Angular specific at all, it stays on a very high-level. Replace the word Angular with any other web framework and the article would still make perfect sense. Not that the article does not have some value, just that it has very little to do with its title.
NOTE: Haven't used AngularJS and only scraped the article. But Rails for example, doesn't have a namespace problem, because ruby modules provide a namespace and prevent name clashes easily.
That said, I'm not sure Rails and AngularJS are direct competitors as many apps use a combination of both frameworks or more generally Rails + JS-framework.
Re: 2 years with Angular
#5I confess I am an Angular fan. But this article is not Angular specific at all, it stays on a very high-level. Replace the word Angular with any other web framework and the article would still make perfect sense. Not that the article does not have some value, just that it has very little to do with its title.
It would make sense but it wouldn't be true. And the linked articles of "the bad parts" are pretty Angular specific.
that says it all: the most framework specific part of the article are the links in the end to other articles.
Its good to have feedback from the community, but I wish some of these posts would get down to the specifics, we would all benefit much more. Something like: "I tried to this (details) in Angular and it was difficult, tried to do it again with this other framework and it was much easier".
Re: 2 years with Angular
#6If Angular is not The Thing (a premise which I have no trouble believing), then what is a Good Thing to perform the task of, for example, consuming Django Rest Framework endpoints and making a frontend of them?
Re: 2 years with Angular
#7I confess I am an Angular fan. But this article is not Angular specific at all, it stays on a very high-level. Replace the word Angular with any other web framework and the article would still make perfect sense. Not that the article does not have some value, just that it has very little to do with its title.
[deleted]
Re: 2 years with Angular
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would make sense but it wouldn't be true. And the linked articles of "the bad parts" are pretty Angular specific.
that says it all: the most framework specific part of the article are the links in the end to other articles. Its good to have feedback from the community, but I wish some of these posts would get down to the specifics, we would all benefit much more. Something like: "I tried to this (details) in Angular and it was difficult, tried to do it again with this other framework and it was much easier".
the author actually has a series of "Angular Bad" articles on his blog which are more or less specific:
http://www.fse.guru/angular-bad-parts-part-1
http://www.fse.guru/angular-bad-parts-part-2
http://www.fse.guru/angular-bad-parts-part-3
http://www.fse.guru/angular-bad-parts-part-4
Re: 2 years with Angular
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would make sense but it wouldn't be true. And the linked articles of "the bad parts" are pretty Angular specific.
that says it all: the most framework specific part of the article are the links in the end to other articles. Its good to have feedback from the community, but I wish some of these posts would get down to the specifics, we would all benefit much more. Something like: "I tried to this (details) in Angular and it was difficult, tried to do it again with this other framework and it was much easier".
> that says it all: the most framework specific part of the article are the links in the end to other articles.
Having to click a link to reach the information you need, isn't a big deal IMHO. It's the content that should be discussed. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with posting links to prior (or other) blog posts.
Re: 2 years with Angular
#10I confess I am an Angular fan. But this article is not Angular specific at all, it stays on a very high-level. Replace the word Angular with any other web framework and the article would still make perfect sense. Not that the article does not have some value, just that it has very little to do with its title.
Same opinion here. I think angular hit an inflection point on the js frameworks, proof is the rapid growth that angular had. Granted, there's some bad parts but I would say it's mostly leaky abstractions; I'm wondering how angular2 will be, but I surely don't understand why all the hate around angular.
It seems that the poster got bitten by some problems and blames it on angular. I recommend an exercise to current and future angular users: really try to understand HOW you would implement angular features such as two-way binding or modules or directives. If you do this you will understand that problems such as described by the poster in http://www.fse.guru/angular-bad-parts-part-3 are really due to his own misconception about what the framework should do and what it really does. I've been working with angular for two years and never had the problems that the poster reflects. I've had other problems but I would argue that for the most of it, I like the way angular is designed and like the compromises they took (mostly dirty checking to make two way binding work automagically).