3 ms·

Hold on. I'm not talking in a "Angular vs jQuery" way. I meant "Angular vs something like Backbone that just happens to use jQuery". I wouldn't build a large a

• batoure 13y ago
  See how quickly careless words can brand you as a sadistic maniac :) !!
• batoure 13y ago
  But seriously not to answer a question with a question, though I am going to... but maybe the better question is "why do frameworks like Backbone need to use jQuery?" Base angular is incredibly compact and I have yet to really run into a wall with it compared to projects we have tried to do in Backbone (that sounds like we have had problems in backbone we haven't I am just saying the experience is comparable). It seems to me like the best reason to keep jQuery in something like Backbone is to make it easier to integrate existing jQuery libraries... which is maybe worth reconsidering anyway.... see argument #1
  • delluminatus 13y ago
    Not sure about Backbone specifically, but jQuery is good for a lot more than DOM manipulation. It hides a lot of the differences in browser Javascript APIs, and provides a lot of convenient AJAX tools. For instance, server communication is as simple as a $.getJSON away.
    • batoure 13y ago
      so http requests are also similarly directly handled in Angular without the need for jquery.
      • verisimilidude 13y ago
        But his point stands: jQuery is useful beyond DOM manipulation as a library. In one of my current side projects, all of the DOM is managed through React, but I'm still using (and loving!) jQuery for all the $.ajax stuff.
        • batoure 13y ago
          To be fair your statement is more inline with my first point, for as much as someone shows how clean Angular http services are there will always be someone who like the simplicity or paradigm of the more seasoned pillar platforms