3 ms·

Before berating other people's knowledge, you should probably make sure that what you are saying is infallible. So with that I ask you: Do you realise that JS

Before berating other people's knowledge, you should probably make sure that what you are saying is infallible. So with that I ask you: Do you realise that JS is an object oriented language? Prototypes are a means for inheritance (i.e. reuse of code), just as classes are in more traditional languages - it does not mean JS is not OO. My interpretation of the GP comment is that he means angular to JS is like jQuery to JS, it's effectively a DSL that you have to learn in itself. Someone once said "people don't write javascript anymore, they write jQuery". That's what I think he meant

Pherdnut 14y ago
Uh, you were the one who suggested JS wasn't OOP-oriented. It's all JS to me. jQuery is just a function that's spits out adapter/decorator objects. Just as Angular, Knockout, Backbone, Ember, etc... are all just bloatworks that miss one critical point. We already had the V and the C pretty well covered. They're throwing a big veil of abstraction over one that was already there and worked fine. It's like webforms all over again only this time we're trying to pretend the client-side isn't already what it is rather than not there at all. And while yes, IMO, we should think of web apps as two separate apps, the client-side's concerns are localized enough that it's kind of silly to try and apply MVC to it (not that what any of this stuff does can really be called MVC or MV-whatever anyway). What is it with modern developers wanting frameworks to be the answer before they understood the question in the question in the first place? How do you even write this stuff without starting to feel a lot silly about the fact that you're just duplicating effort? Because at some point they all have to bind with the mechanisms already in place to bind to their own bindings and that's just stupid.
- WickyNilliams 14y ago
  Are you replying to the correct person? I quite clearly stated JS was OO, whilst the GP clearly says that MV* frameworks "create an illusion of OOP". If you're not convinced of the benefits of MV* frameworks on the client, please write a complex client-side app with vanilla JS and share what you learnt. I'm being sincere there - I've tried, and I quickly started drowning in sea of boiler plate code I'd rather not have to write. Not that it's not fun to write some of that stuff, but I'd rather be delivering value. And what happens when I create a second app? Hmm seems there's lot of similar boiler plate stuff, why don't I just abstract that into a framewo.. oh wait
ganarajpr 14y ago
Did you actually read what I wrote? I do agree I missed writing "classical" OOP in there, but I guess I assume wrong when I think that people can fill in the blanks. Here is the jist of what I mentioned earlier - "Most frameworks provide abstractions over javascript that create the illusion of classical OOP".Angular doesnt! . I am talking about prototypes and the prototype chain there? You still think I am just throwing keywords in the air, in that previous sentence and dont understand javascript? You still think I am just writing crap there because ( fill in the blank! )?

Pherdnut 14y ago

Uh, you were the one who suggested JS wasn't OOP-oriented. It's all JS to me. jQuery is just a function that's spits out adapter/decorator objects. Just as Angular, Knockout, Backbone, Ember, etc... are all just bloatworks that miss one critical point. We already had the V and the C pretty well covered. They're throwing a big veil of abstraction over one that was already there and worked fine. It's like webforms all over again only this time we're trying to pretend the client-side isn't already what it is rather than not there at all. And while yes, IMO, we should think of web apps as two separate apps, the client-side's concerns are localized enough that it's kind of silly to try and apply MVC to it (not that what any of this stuff does can really be called MVC or MV-whatever anyway). What is it with modern developers wanting frameworks to be the answer before they understood the question in the question in the first place? How do you even write this stuff without starting to feel a lot silly about the fact that you're just duplicating effort? Because at some point they all have to bind with the mechanisms already in place to bind to their own bindings and that's just stupid.

WickyNilliams 14y ago
Are you replying to the correct person? I quite clearly stated JS was OO, whilst the GP clearly says that MV* frameworks "create an illusion of OOP". If you're not convinced of the benefits of MV* frameworks on the client, please write a complex client-side app with vanilla JS and share what you learnt. I'm being sincere there - I've tried, and I quickly started drowning in sea of boiler plate code I'd rather not have to write. Not that it's not fun to write some of that stuff, but I'd rather be delivering value. And what happens when I create a second app? Hmm seems there's lot of similar boiler plate stuff, why don't I just abstract that into a framewo.. oh wait

ganarajpr 14y ago

Did you actually read what I wrote? I do agree I missed writing "classical" OOP in there, but I guess I assume wrong when I think that people can fill in the blanks. Here is the jist of what I mentioned earlier - "Most frameworks provide abstractions over javascript that create the illusion of classical OOP".Angular doesnt! . I am talking about prototypes and the prototype chain there? You still think I am just throwing keywords in the air, in that previous sentence and dont understand javascript? You still think I am just writing crap there because ( fill in the blank! )?