4 ms·
I don't quite understand the 'polluting the html' argument. How is this worse than using a templating package like Moustache? Plus, it's Angular's mission to
by eterpstra 14y ago
I don't quite understand the 'polluting the html' argument. How is this worse than using a templating package like Moustache? Plus, it's Angular's mission to extend html with the framework. Says so right on the homepage.
- joshontheweb 14y agoIm sure that is inline with their mission. I just don't happen to like their mission. IMO the html gets pretty messy with a bunch of non-standard attributes that could easily be handled just using class/id names. Once again, my point is that is why 'I' don't like it. I don't have anything against angular or you using it.
- ganarajpr 14y agoCould you perhaps answer the first part of his question as well? That was probably the main part that you missed out. Isnt mustache doing the same? Why do you really care about the rendered HTML ( after mustache's spits out html ) being clean and pure? Dont we all know that "no one" sees it? The only time angular / knockout's html seems to be less "pure" is when the browser has already rendered the content. At which point pretty much no one cares about it. When you are debugging you have your source.. Its either mustache ( or similiar templating solutions! ) which are not even close to HTML or HTML with additional attributes.. I dont see how that makes a difference.