4 ms·

I've been building a hobby site for a card game I like to play (http://onosendaicorp.com http://onosendaicorp.com) in Angular.js over the past few months, just

by scotth 13y ago

I've been building a hobby site for a card game I like to play (http://onosendaicorp.com http://onosendaicorp.com) in Angular.js over the past few months, just to get a feel for what Angular can (and can't) do. I've found it to be a net positive experience. There are some great ideas in there, and in some ways it saves time over lighter-weight frameworks. For the record, I've found the documentation to be quite good. Read the guides and understand how it works before you get going, and you'll be able to reason about its behaviour without much trouble. The source is very well documented as well.

camus2 13y ago
nice. The only thing that bother me is that one can feel a huge delay between a click and the actual result of the click on the screen.It is something I feel when using any angular app. Might be a problem for a LOB that people might use everyday. maybe using read-only bind directives would make apps more responsive.
- scotth 13y ago
  In this case, it isn't actually Angular. The delay is actually related to one of two things (I've profiled pretty heavily) 1. When moving between cards (in the card view), the render is very expensive. The code runs in about 50ms, which could be faster, but is good enough to feel responsive if rendering were not an issue. 2. When searching, laying out the grid is, again, very expensive to render. I've cut out Angular from all except for event handling. The grid items themselves are read-only bound (although the collection watch still exists), and I rearrange their position/visibility through CSS. This is, in my opinion, not a fault of Angular's. The other frameworks wouldn't fair too much better.
- pfg 13y ago
  Compared to what exactly? It certainly feels way more responsive than any non-single-page-app in my experience. The single page apps I use every day are mostly GWT apps (namely Gmail & co), and comparing those to angular, I'd say angular has the lead (though that's not exactly a fair comparison, maybe GWT could be just as responsive). Don't know how it compares to other frameworks. Obviously native applications usually still beat web apps in that respect (tho the gap is getting smaller).

by scotth 13y ago

camus2 13y ago

nice. The only thing that bother me is that one can feel a huge delay between a click and the actual result of the click on the screen.It is something I feel when using any angular app. Might be a problem for a LOB that people might use everyday. maybe using read-only bind directives would make apps more responsive.

scotth 13y ago
In this case, it isn't actually Angular. The delay is actually related to one of two things (I've profiled pretty heavily) 1. When moving between cards (in the card view), the render is very expensive. The code runs in about 50ms, which could be faster, but is good enough to feel responsive if rendering were not an issue. 2. When searching, laying out the grid is, again, very expensive to render. I've cut out Angular from all except for event handling. The grid items themselves are read-only bound (although the collection watch still exists), and I rearrange their position/visibility through CSS. This is, in my opinion, not a fault of Angular's. The other frameworks wouldn't fair too much better.
pfg 13y ago
Compared to what exactly? It certainly feels way more responsive than any non-single-page-app in my experience. The single page apps I use every day are mostly GWT apps (namely Gmail & co), and comparing those to angular, I'd say angular has the lead (though that's not exactly a fair comparison, maybe GWT could be just as responsive). Don't know how it compares to other frameworks. Obviously native applications usually still beat web apps in that respect (tho the gap is getting smaller).