3 ms·
> the underengineering put into it, There is no such things as underengineering, given specific business requirements. On the other hand, writting useless code
by aikah 11y ago
> the underengineering put into it,
There is no such things as underengineering, given specific business requirements. On the other hand, writting useless code is something I often see with people abusing IoC containers like Spring. If a minimal codebase passes the acceptance tests it is not "underengineering" ,it's actually doing one's job as a developer.
Anyway i'm really against the lack of pragmatism in the new DI. But don't worry , by the time ng2 is realised you'll see an avalanche of blog posts about how horrible it is. Mark my words.
- Bahamut 11y agoThere is such a thing called underengineering - it happens quite often at dev shops where developers do not plan their code out with flexibility, clarity, and modularity, where you run into poor abstractions that are inflexible because not enough thought went into what approach would work best for potential business needs...and unsurprisingly, that sort of code often is difficult, if not impossible, to properly test. Re: ng2 DI, I disagree, I have used the ng2 DI system for almost a year now, in production code as well for a large part of it. The new DI is decoupled from any framework, allows multiple injectors, avoids verbose hackiness, and is more natural to use - all significant improvements to ng1. There is literally nothing lost, only additions in terms of features and flexibility.