3 ms·

You stopped reading after "I used it for two weeks?" Really? How much time do developers need to waste before realizing some software is bad? A month? A quarter

by _blrj 10y ago

You stopped reading after "I used it for two weeks?" Really? How much time do developers need to waste before realizing some software is bad? A month? A quarter? A year or two? I should be able to look at a library or framework's API examples and say "I don't want to use this," and not have to waste a second more.

onion2k 10y ago
You can assess whether a framework is a good fit for your use case in two weeks. You can't assess whether or not the entire framework is good or bad in two weeks.
- mwfunk 10y ago
  Exactly. There's a huge difference between saying something is objectively terrible, vs. saying that it's not the right choice for you (or that it's bad based on your subjective preferences).
- Udik 10y ago
  Are you sure you don't want to say the exact opposite? Something might look good, simple and logic, but you might discover in the end, after a long time, that it wasn't well fit to your use case. On the other hand, something can be horrible, inconsistent, poorly documented and extremely hard to master, but might turn out to fit just exactly one specific use case. In any case, we're talking about web applications. Which would be the use case that angular2 doesn't fit? And which the one it fits? Because I don't remember angular2 being advertised as something that has a very specific use case.
  - alex504 10y ago
    The use case for Angular 2 is super hardcore enterprise. Lots of developers, very large multimillion dollar projects, and safety being a top concern. Everything must be done in a very standard way, and it assumes you need a bunch of stuff that only a fairly big application will need. Testing is very highly emphasized, with components being forced to be written in a way that is testable. This guy clearly doesn't know what Angular is doing under the hood, meaning there is a bunch of stuff going on in his app that he doesn't understand, which is causing him lots of bugs and heartache. Many a time developers have built Angular apps without understanding what they are doing and ending up with a flaming pile of garbage that needs to be completely rewritten. However if you know what you are doing or hire someone that knows what they are doing to set up an application for you, I think the framework does have its advantages. Having said all of this I really disliked my time working in Angular, with things like the terrible docs and lots of hidden esoteric knowledge needed being big flaws that they should address. For my company it made sense though.

by _blrj 10y ago

onion2k 10y ago

You can assess whether a framework is a good fit for your use case in two weeks. You can't assess whether or not the entire framework is good or bad in two weeks.

mwfunk 10y ago
Exactly. There's a huge difference between saying something is objectively terrible, vs. saying that it's not the right choice for you (or that it's bad based on your subjective preferences).
Udik 10y ago
Are you sure you don't want to say the exact opposite? Something might look good, simple and logic, but you might discover in the end, after a long time, that it wasn't well fit to your use case. On the other hand, something can be horrible, inconsistent, poorly documented and extremely hard to master, but might turn out to fit just exactly one specific use case. In any case, we're talking about web applications. Which would be the use case that angular2 doesn't fit? And which the one it fits? Because I don't remember angular2 being advertised as something that has a very specific use case.
- alex504 10y ago
  The use case for Angular 2 is super hardcore enterprise. Lots of developers, very large multimillion dollar projects, and safety being a top concern. Everything must be done in a very standard way, and it assumes you need a bunch of stuff that only a fairly big application will need. Testing is very highly emphasized, with components being forced to be written in a way that is testable. This guy clearly doesn't know what Angular is doing under the hood, meaning there is a bunch of stuff going on in his app that he doesn't understand, which is causing him lots of bugs and heartache. Many a time developers have built Angular apps without understanding what they are doing and ending up with a flaming pile of garbage that needs to be completely rewritten. However if you know what you are doing or hire someone that knows what they are doing to set up an application for you, I think the framework does have its advantages. Having said all of this I really disliked my time working in Angular, with things like the terrible docs and lots of hidden esoteric knowledge needed being big flaws that they should address. For my company it made sense though.