11 ms·

Angular v14 is now available

• theodorejb 4y ago
  • askonomm 4y ago
    Because of the whole "master" meaning a slave owner thing that the progressive left seems to think it means and it apparently hurt enough feelings to make it a movement (default main branch on Github repos is now also "main" because of this), and then you have companies that desperately try to be hip and cool, and they do this to get social clout. The whole thing is pretty sad if you ask me, but what do I know.
    • culi 4y ago
      lol somehow I doubt companies are gaining much social clout for changing their default branch names...
      • arinlen 4y ago
        > lol somehow I doubt companies are gaining much social clout for changing their default branch names... No one is expecting, or seeking, major wins by being mindful of the pervasive nature of non-inclusive language. But it's such a low-effort thing to do that there is actually no justification for avoiding doing the right thing.
    • bergenty 4y ago
    • iueotnmunto 4y ago
      It takes a few minutes to switch. Maybe a bit more to rebind all CI scripts etc in a project as large as react. There are some things that I don't fully get (slavery was never big in my country). It takes a few minutes of effort to not be an asshole (real or perceived), so I just do it rather than thinking to much about whether or not the wider population should be offended or not.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • askonomm 4y ago
        Yes, you're right, and I also do it. Doesn't mean however that I need to bury my head in the sand in topics such as this and never mention it.
        • drunkpotato 4y ago
          You don't need to, but you might want to. It'll make life more pleasant and less angry.
      • Gigachad 4y ago
        Not wanting to be seen as an asshole is how we end up with a never ending stream of bullshit because no one is brave enough to stand up. How much time has been wasted on feel good crap that serves only to give the illusion of caring. Big tech is happy to rename their git branches while doing nothing about the actual evil they commit.
      • hinkley 4y ago
        We do not have a monorepo, and you can practically watch the gears turn when we mention any process change that involves changing the CI scripts. And this part may be projection, but I am nearly certain I see people subconsciously avoiding solutions that involve systemic CI changes. I got tired of making clerical errors or helping others fix theirs and went through and moved a bunch of configuration out of our CI configs into source control. So for my projects making changes is easier, but I still bump into mature projects that still have the old patterns because nobody even wanted to edit the configs one last time.
        • iueotnmunto 4y ago
          I fully understand not changing for that reason and don't think anyone would think less of a justifiably difficult situation. But at the same time, what you described is probably indicative of deeper issues which should be considered technical debt, not because of political correctness but because there may be other inflexibility which inhibit productivity in the future.
    • Karawebnetwork 4y ago
      This has nothing to do with left/right. This is a racial issue. People of color exist along the entire political spectrum.
      • askonomm 4y ago
      • jjtheblunt 4y ago
        I'd say it's not even only a racial issue (but predominately was/is in the United States), but a socioeconomic one, with racial correlations. There are plenty of modern day indentured servitude exploitations afoot: the leaked internal Amazon documents about it being business policy to keep engineering hires for less than two years, while preserving managers who fire them, is an example that springs to mind.
        • hinkley 4y ago
          Is it still the case that Amazon gives new hires a hiring bonus that has to be paid back if they don't stay at the company for a set amount of time? If you're also targeting fresh college grads... That's not exactly indentured servitude but it's too close to the Island of Pleasure (Pinocchio) for my comfort.
          • jjtheblunt 4y ago
            not sure
      • dmitriid 4y ago
        Switching master to main has literally nothing to do with the imaginary (in this particular case) racial issue. Master bedrooms and master records exist. People master their trades. And so on and so on. My understanding is that the absolute vast majority of people of color couldn't care less if git branch was called master or main.
        • 4y ago
    • hinkley 4y ago
      I'm on board for removing 'master-slave' terminology from peripherals and replication terminology. I'm on board for removing blacklist/whitelist. But "master" has other meanings besides subjugation. In particular, proficiency or perfection. It was always my sense that git master branch was meant in the same sense as 'gold master' in recording and duplication, or 'master piece' in art and skilled labor. That said, branches come from trunks, not master or main, and it always felt like a bit of fuckery that git changed the subversion terminology that most of the eventual target audience was already familiar with. Changing to "main" is just confidently incorrect grandstanding. If you're gonna 'fix it' then bloody well fix it.
      • WorldMaker 4y ago
        Git got "master" from closed source SCM Bitkeeper (the Linux kernel team never used Subversion) which did have a concept of "slave" branches as it used master/slave style replication. It's an unfortunate default closer in originating usage to the peripheral and replication terminology than the "pristine copy" terminology. Changing to "main" is often as much for not breaking a lot of people's muscle memory of "ma<tab>" in the CLI as any other reason to name the default/main branch that. "default" is a good name, too. If you want to use SVN's "trunk" go for it, that's a good name. At this point most git tools don't care what you call it.
        • hinkley 4y ago
          I keep going back and forth about whether I should respond to this, so I just upvoted you instead, but now I'm third-guessing myself. If that's actually the case about BitKeeper then 1) what the fuck, guys, and 2) I'll be thinking hard before I roll out that little rant again. Standing next to a bad actor, you have to gauge your behavior more carefully, because a reasonable response now has additional connotations. Laughing at a joke changes depending on who is telling the joke, for instance. The part I still feel fairly confident about though is that it feels like someone needs to tap the brakes. It feels like we're on the brink of going too far with this one. And I don't necessarily mean 'witch hunt' style, although that thought has occurred to me more than once. I mean more like diminishing returns and backlash. Maybe we should be wrapping this up and looking for a new problem to fix? Or at least asking the question. Perfect is the enemy of the good, and we haven't really achieved 'good'.
    • Joeri 4y ago
      In technology master was always paired with slave, so yes, the word master in technology does indeed imply the meaning of slave owner. I do agree that getting that bent out of shape about the semantics of the names of inanimate objects like git branches is a bit weird, but then I am also talking from a position of privilege and have no lived experience of being treated differently because of my ancestry. The way I figure: if some people care that much that it is called “main” and not “master”, and I don’t really care either way, why not let them have that one?
      • dmitriid 4y ago
        > if some people care that much that it is called “main” and not “master”, and I don’t really care either way, why not let them have that one Because (besides being an extremely stupid change for the most tenuous of reasons) this imposes a one-sided US-centric view of the world.
    • bastardoperator 4y ago
      You seem upset? Github, Bitbucket, Gitlab have all switched to main, together. You know who isn't upset? The git community or the person that introduced the master concept or the people who know you can name your default branch to anything in under 30 seconds. There is nothing wrong with trying to use more inclusive language regardless of said reasons, and to be honest main is actually a better name anyways.
  • bergenty 4y ago
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • Seriomino 4y ago
    Independent from politics: I like main much more. Shorter and better sound than master
• rychco 4y ago
  I'm kind of amazed Angular is still around. I hadn't heard of it for what feels like years at this point & assumed it was already in the graveyard. My company tried using it back in 2017ish but it was a pain for us at the time. Other than Google's own services, does anyone have any examples or experiences using Angular nowadays?
  • jmkni 4y ago
    In the UK, there is no shortage of work for Angular contractors. Enterprise and Government are particularly keen on it.
  • pjmlp 4y ago
    Yes, as Java/.NET shop, Angular is usually our first option for SPA applications, Vue second and then React third. This when we just don't just use SSR + vanilaJS/WebAPIs.
  • cjhowarddev 4y ago
    I used Angular at my last company. After having used react for many years and then experimenting with svelte, Angular (even the most modern versions) felt like it was always in my way. Bi-directional data binding and the isolation between style, structure, and logic felt was less productive. Angular has some nice properties, like dependency injection built in, but you can circumvent many of those needs with a functional component tree in react (or limit the surface area across components). The simple fact that you need @Output event emitters to handle callbacks is a good example of how bloated it feels. It may be that I don't know nearly enough about Angular but even after a year of doing my best to learn the idiomatic Angular ways I wasn't impressed.
    • Zetaphor 4y ago
      As someone who is now a couple years into using Angular after a number of years working with Vue (since 1.0) your observations are accurate. It doesn't really get any better as you become more familiar with the framework.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
• vcryan 4y ago
  Does anyone care? :)
• Vladimof 4y ago
  The worst thing about Angular is that it obfuscates the web....
• vt85 4y ago
  So, the most important thing is that they renamed the master branch. Along with the racist slogans “Black lives matter”, those things made me vow that I will never use Angular in anything I can decide on. This madness is going too far and it will bring upon us real fascists.
• WorldMaker 4y ago
  It's good to see even experimental support for lessening the reliance on NgModules (which get in the way of appropriate tree-shaking), but I wish it weren't by doubling down on Angular's usage of non-standard Decorators. Requiring an experimental build flag in Typescript to even use Angular at all still feels like a red flag if not just outright poor taste in the framework architecture.
  • veidr 4y ago
    Yeah, that has always weirded me out, too, but I have assumed that because Angular is one of TypeScript's largest and most significant customers, that the flag is highly unlikely to actually be removed. (?) I'm just guessing though.
    • WorldMaker 4y ago
      My understanding is that Babel already removed support for similar decorators to the ones Angular uses because that first attempt at TC39 decorators proposal was entirely revised and replaced with a very different decorators proposal. The "Decorators 2: Electric Boogaloo" proposal has actually made it to Stage 3 in TC39's proposal process this time which means that Typescript is going to be under pressure to add "real" decorators and remove the "fake" decorators that Angular currently relies on. I don't know how hard it would be for Typescript to support both medium/long-term but the transpilation backends for the two proposals are rather different to my understanding. (The new proposal is simpler, at least.) Angular can certainly migrate to "real" decorators any day now, but my criticism stands that they could have already switched to the desugared form of the new proposal already (which resembles the desugared form of Python annotations) and have been better prepared for a migration. I've got a feeling part of the reason they haven't prepared for such a migration already is that maybe the DI is using too much Typescript-specific support in the "fake" decorators that maybe isn't likely to get carried forward into the "real" decorators.
      • veidr 4y ago
        Thank you; that is very interesting. I do think TypeScript's goal to be faithful to / eventually consistent with upstream ECMAScript would outweigh maintaining the current decorators for Angular. So perhaps the most likely outcome is that TypeScript will at some point announce the deprecation of the current decorators, and this will cause Angular to have to migrate as you suggest.
• hellojesus 4y ago
  Starting with front end: angular or react? Seems like a good time to make a decision.
  • mhoad 4y ago
    Angular comes with the advantage of you can learn “the angular way” and it will always be applicable. With React every time you pick up a new project you don’t know what you’re going to get. I also have some serious doubts about the long term viability of React for what it’s worth. They made some choices early on in the project about how they decided to integrate with the wider web platform that made a lot of sense at the time but are now big liabilities that they can’t get rid of. Like I wouldn’t consider starting a new project with React in 2022 if I wanted it to still be around for more than 5 years.
    • azemetre 4y ago
      Could you expand upon what you mean by liabilities? Are you referring to the ecosystem or something like hooks?
    • hellojesus 4y ago
      Thanks!
  • WorldMaker 4y ago
    My opinion is that Angular is the worst of all the current frontend stacks. It's acceptably bad to a lot of people because "no one ever went wrong using something from Google", but it's just bad, especially for something associated with Google. It's "a horse designed by a committee of people with huge egos" that doesn't do anything it sets out to do well and has a ton of "best practices" and "defaults" that lead directly to "pits of failure" rather than anything resembling success. I've blogged more detailed technical analysis about that if you are interested. React tries not to be awful and generally seems to have a good idea of the direction it is going. It's not perfect, no tech stack is ever perfect, but as an "expert" at this point on both stacks, I'd wholeheartedly recommend React over Angular.