3 ms·
IMHO, it's hard for these client side frameworks to get much steam in Angular's wake.. Though Thorax is much easier to start, I think over time Angular's power
by brryant 13y ago
IMHO, it's hard for these client side frameworks to get much steam in Angular's wake.. Though Thorax is much easier to start, I think over time Angular's power will make it the dominant front end framework out there
- mikeknoop 13y agoAn analogy to the Python world: Angular is like Django, Backbone is like Flask. If you pick Backbone, you'll be inventing a lot of patterns yourself and scaling it, but I think that appeals to a lot of people.
- __derek__ 13y agoA better one, I think: Ember is like Django (full-featured, heavily opinionated, tightly coupled with its preferred tools), Angular is like Pyramid (powerful, but without a lot of established patterns; the Wild West with big guns), and Backbone is like Flask (micro-framework that does what it does very well and lets the user handle the rest).
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- vidarh 13y agoI'd rather compare Angular to PHP. I keep wanting to look at it, but whenever I do, I never get past recoiling in horror at the examples that tacks attributes onto the HTML tags in a way that most reminds me of the early days of PHP development of mixing HTML and logic It might be all beautiful when done right for big projects for what I know. But then the examples on the angularjs site are giving the wrong impression.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- encoderer 13y agoI disagree. I'm delighted Angular exists but I think there are many examples in history where the more general, lightweight technology sees more widespread success than the feature-rich, high concept alternative. That's exactly why we chose Backbone over Angular earlier this year. An imperfect analogy, but: maybe Angular is like Wave, Backbone like Email...