4 ms·

This is dramatic. A lot of developers put a lot of time and effort into trying to make something that improves developer experience, and trashing them is shitty

This is dramatic. A lot of developers put a lot of time and effort into trying to make something that improves developer experience, and trashing them is shitty. Is there things wrong with Angular? Yes. Is it my choice of frameworks? No. But Angular came out years ago, back when jQuery was the defacto standard. And much like how jQuery (and Flash before that) isn't in vogue now (nor should they be), Angular presented a lot of unique ideas about how we could be thinking about building for the web, and for that I'm appreciative. IIRC, Angular.js was originally built as a prototyping tool for designers. It got popular, and the creators did their best to make it work. It didn't. But it's a lot easier to write negative articles such as "Angular is rotten to the core" than it is to create a javascript framework.

turtlebits 5y ago
Are you talking about AngularJS? I loved AngularJS for its productivity gains, which IMO inspired Vue. Angular however, is a totally different beast and I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
- brundolf 5y ago
  Also known as Angular 1 and Angular 2+ for those confused by the (very confusing) branding. Angular 2 was a ground-up rewrite in a very different style.
md8z 5y ago
That was my initial thought as well, but if you read the rest of the article there actually is quite a lot of technical details. It's not just trashing developers. I think the title could probably be changed to be less inflammatory.
simon04 5y ago
> Angular came out years ago, back when jQuery was the defacto standard You seem to be confusing Angular.js (≤1.8) with Angular (aka Angular.io, ≥2.0). The latter is an incompatible rewrite of the former.
- hasperdi 5y ago
  I wouldn't say they're incompatible rewrite. They are two different products.
gkoberger 5y ago
ADDENDUM: The original title on HN was "Angular is Rotten to the Core". My defense was about the "core" aspect... since the core was, in my opinion, a noble attempt at making the web a better place. (Additionally, I feel like if you're going to criticize Angular for being by Google, you can't really be recommending React. Also, not the point, but I think the “No One Got Fired For Picking Google” subheader is a weird take on the original IBM version of the quote.)
- WorldMaker 5y ago
  In this case the phrase "to the Core" is much more directly aimed at from Angular's core outward in that Angular literally has a key library named `@angular/core` and that my technical complaints originate there and I do try to draw the line from those decisions made in `@angular/core` and the ripple effect they have on other major libraries and the ecosystem as whole. That the phrase "to the Core" serves as double entendre here questioning their intent/philosophy behind the existence of the framework was certainly intended to be clickbait, but I thought it clickbait that HN would appreciate because it is technically correct (and as we all know that is the best kind of correct). I appreciate that it was not well received by some and I may have been too clever with it.

turtlebits 5y ago

Are you talking about AngularJS? I loved AngularJS for its productivity gains, which IMO inspired Vue. Angular however, is a totally different beast and I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

brundolf 5y ago
Also known as Angular 1 and Angular 2+ for those confused by the (very confusing) branding. Angular 2 was a ground-up rewrite in a very different style.

md8z 5y ago

That was my initial thought as well, but if you read the rest of the article there actually is quite a lot of technical details. It's not just trashing developers. I think the title could probably be changed to be less inflammatory.

simon04 5y ago

> Angular came out years ago, back when jQuery was the defacto standard You seem to be confusing Angular.js (≤1.8) with Angular (aka Angular.io, ≥2.0). The latter is an incompatible rewrite of the former.

hasperdi 5y ago
I wouldn't say they're incompatible rewrite. They are two different products.

gkoberger 5y ago

ADDENDUM: The original title on HN was "Angular is Rotten to the Core". My defense was about the "core" aspect... since the core was, in my opinion, a noble attempt at making the web a better place. (Additionally, I feel like if you're going to criticize Angular for being by Google, you can't really be recommending React. Also, not the point, but I think the “No One Got Fired For Picking Google” subheader is a weird take on the original IBM version of the quote.)

WorldMaker 5y ago
In this case the phrase "to the Core" is much more directly aimed at from Angular's core outward in that Angular literally has a key library named `@angular/core` and that my technical complaints originate there and I do try to draw the line from those decisions made in `@angular/core` and the ripple effect they have on other major libraries and the ecosystem as whole. That the phrase "to the Core" serves as double entendre here questioning their intent/philosophy behind the existence of the framework was certainly intended to be clickbait, but I thought it clickbait that HN would appreciate because it is technically correct (and as we all know that is the best kind of correct). I appreciate that it was not well received by some and I may have been too clever with it.