3 ms·

> Angular would have been a better choice in this case because of similar design patterns. Well sure maybe superficially. There’s classes and then… that’s it.

by fuzzy2 6y ago

> Angular would have been a better choice in this case because of similar design patterns. Well sure maybe superficially. There’s classes and then… that’s it. I don’t really see any other part of Angular that would help a (somewhat) experienced (pure) .NET developer in any way. There’s no batteries-included state management either. Technology switches are hard. I don’t think the problem is with .NET specifically but with developers that stopped longing. Longing for new technologies, new algorithms, …

pas 6y ago
Angular has built in dependency injection, recommends to use services to encapsulate state. Built-in services use RxJs for propagating changes by default, and following that pattern gets you very far. Especially for an enterprise app. https://angular.io/guide/singleton-services https://angular.io/guide/singleton-services
- fuzzy2 6y ago
  Hm, right, forgot about DI. Still, RxJS is the one thing many of my peers just cannot seem to grasp. So IMHO that's actually a minus.
  - pas 6y ago
    I'd pick RxJs over Redux, naturally if a team should use whatever they're happy with.
    - dirtnugget 6y ago
      RxJS is not a replacement for redux, in fact ngrx is a redux implementation based on RxJS and Angular. It brings everything, including effects with their own plugins and it is quite a pleasure to work with.
      - pas 6y ago
        I'm aware, I'm saying that using (a few singleton) services for managing state plus RxJS to effectively propagate (state) changes into every other component/service provides a comfortable development workflow/mindset. (I find redux-like patterns unnecessarily complex.)
        dirtnugget 6y ago
        Yes that I completely true. However, not sure of you know @ngrx/entity but it solves 80% of all business logic I need in a clean way. An most of the time creating services I end up building exactly what the framework gives me
  - mpawelski 6y ago
    I think RxJs evolved from "Reactive Extensions for .NET" which was quite popular even 10 years ago. So the core idea is probably well understood by many .NET devs.

by fuzzy2 6y ago

pas 6y ago

Angular has built in dependency injection, recommends to use services to encapsulate state. Built-in services use RxJs for propagating changes by default, and following that pattern gets you very far. Especially for an enterprise app. https://angular.io/guide/singleton-services https://angular.io/guide/singleton-services

fuzzy2 6y ago
Hm, right, forgot about DI. Still, RxJS is the one thing many of my peers just cannot seem to grasp. So IMHO that's actually a minus.
- pas 6y ago
  I'd pick RxJs over Redux, naturally if a team should use whatever they're happy with.
  - dirtnugget 6y ago
    RxJS is not a replacement for redux, in fact ngrx is a redux implementation based on RxJS and Angular. It brings everything, including effects with their own plugins and it is quite a pleasure to work with.
    - pas 6y ago
      I'm aware, I'm saying that using (a few singleton) services for managing state plus RxJS to effectively propagate (state) changes into every other component/service provides a comfortable development workflow/mindset. (I find redux-like patterns unnecessarily complex.)
      - dirtnugget 6y ago
        Yes that I completely true. However, not sure of you know @ngrx/entity but it solves 80% of all business logic I need in a clean way. An most of the time creating services I end up building exactly what the framework gives me
- mpawelski 6y ago
  I think RxJs evolved from "Reactive Extensions for .NET" which was quite popular even 10 years ago. So the core idea is probably well understood by many .NET devs.