3 ms·
The code blocks written don't tell the whole story - the analog to the .Class is the controller in Angular 1, which one would have to specify a controller name
by Bahamut 10y ago
The code blocks written don't tell the whole story - the analog to the .Class is the controller in Angular 1, which one would have to specify a controller name or define it right in the component, therefore giving equivalent lines for the most part.
It sounds like the person is awfully resistant to TypeScript as well, as the syntax for a component in TS is just
@Component({
})
class Foo {
}
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- merb 10y agoActually I'm not resistant to TypeScript. I just don't want it. Reasons are: - Google changes their mind so freaking often that it's simple not a good idea to follow them there. (Just look at GWT, good project however the direction is more and more confusing especially the communication is really really akward. - Why changing to Angular 2 and TypeScript when there are way many other frameworks that are either in JavaScript or just a little bit better suited for some things? - Why can't I upgrade in a slow path with small deprecations? (i.e. emberjs, react) That are the most reasonable. Actually there are some others which has more something todo with our internal things and that ScalaJS < = > Scala is so good at the current stage.