3 ms·

> "JSX is supported by quite a lot of frameworks, so you aren't locked into React" > Just not the browser natively.... Angular's *directive and [weird] (bindi

> "JSX is supported by quite a lot of frameworks, so you aren't locked into React" > Just not the browser natively.... Angular's *directive and [weird] (binding) [(choices)] will never be supported by the browser natively either. The fact that Angular uses an HTML file extension is a delusion (they really should have picked a different extension, it's such an ugly lie) that the templates will ever be more portable than they currently are. Sure, you generally have better raw copy/paste behavior of real HTML into Angular's templates than JSX, but if you think the mess that is the average Angular template will ever be portable to "native browser functionality", I may have a bridge to sell you.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
Well I can't comment because I've never used Angular. Sounds like it's as much of an anti-pattern as JSX.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  I think it is a worse anti-pattern than JSX: JSX at least uses its own file extensions and doesn't pretend to be HTML. Angular uses the HTML file extension and in my experience confuses a lot of people into thinking the "Angular Template Language" is "just HTML" when it very definitely is not.