4 ms·

That's similar to my viewpoint. Stop with all the frameworks - what new, powerful functionality will it provide your users that existing things can't do (ie JQu

That's similar to my viewpoint. Stop with all the frameworks - what new, powerful functionality will it provide your users that existing things can't do (ie JQuery, raw JS)?

bwilliams 13y ago
Faster development, potentially less bugs, conventions, etc. All of that is highly dependent on what your projects needs but I can't imagine writing some of the Ember apps I've worked on in just plain jQuery while maintaining a clean and readable code base. You eventually end up writing your own framework of sorts anyway when you take minimal path.
snicker 13y ago
the point of a framework is speedy development. less lines of code for results. the tradeoff is often bloat, which one should (ideally) refactor out later. Angular can get overwhelmingly slow if you're not careful with your code, but gosh dang, you sure can whip an app up pretty fast
- Bahamut 13y ago
  For most apps, I've found that slowness is not a problem with Angular. You can do some nasty things though if you're not careful though, definitely agree with that. If you have flaws elsewhere in your codebase, including the backend, it may be possible that in practice, the effects may trickle down to your frontend code with Angular - it has happened in an app I've worked on with a couple of other developers, in which flaws with the api performance caused us to implement some subpar workarounds that triggered many $digests & forced us to spend a day or two on just optimization. Angular can be quite fast compared to jQuery in an app of substance. It is not constantly reading/writing to the DOM in most cases, which saves a lot on the performance front. It is also a smaller library than jQuery, and you're not naively applying global or complicated selectors. Plugins rewritten to be pure javascript + Angular also can have a much smaller footprint & be more powerful to boot, such as the Angular UI Bootstrap project (5 KB minified & gzipped as opposed to 15-35 KB? I forget Bootstrap's js size) & contains all of the power of Angular to modify your functionality with them & more.
- Zelphyr 13y ago
  > bloat, which one should (ideally) refactor out later How do you refactor out bloat from a framework without throwing away the framework? This is my whole point about not using frameworks. They're a siren that WILL eat you in the end.
sebular 13y ago
I don't like rewriting boilerplate code for every new project-- as I see it, Angular is to jQuery what jQuery is to raw JS, just in terms of reimplementing basic functions for the nth time. Of course, if a framework automates a ton of functionality, it'll naturally be inappropriate for certain projects. I wouldn't try to use Angular for an HTML 5 game, for example, though there's a good chance I wouldn't use jQuery either.
- caitp 13y ago
  > I wouldn't try to use Angular for an HTML 5 game, for example, though there's a good chance I wouldn't use jQuery either. I actually did use Angular for an HTML5 game last week as part of a demo for a conference. Admittedly it was a really simple game (tic tac toe), and it did use Polymer as well as angular, as sort of an experiment. But it worked pretty well, and only took about a day and a half to hack together, with realtime multiplayer and chat using socket.io. Obviously you're going to run into things that Angular is not really ideal for, but we are trying to make it do what it does very, very well, so in the future it should be suitable for pretty much any mobile or desktop app. --- This sounds like evangelism, which is not my intent, you're absolutely right about what you're saying, but it's true, sometimes a framework works (and saves a ton of time) that you'd otherwise spend hacking together something awful. Hopefully this mithril thing also saves people a ton of time without them having to worry about numerous other issues.
anton-107 13y ago
Frameworks add to codebase maintainability, not to user experience.

That's similar to my viewpoint. Stop with all the frameworks - what new, powerful functionality will it provide your users that existing things can't do (ie JQuery, raw JS)?

bwilliams 13y ago

Faster development, potentially less bugs, conventions, etc. All of that is highly dependent on what your projects needs but I can't imagine writing some of the Ember apps I've worked on in just plain jQuery while maintaining a clean and readable code base. You eventually end up writing your own framework of sorts anyway when you take minimal path.

snicker 13y ago

the point of a framework is speedy development. less lines of code for results. the tradeoff is often bloat, which one should (ideally) refactor out later. Angular can get overwhelmingly slow if you're not careful with your code, but gosh dang, you sure can whip an app up pretty fast

Bahamut 13y ago
For most apps, I've found that slowness is not a problem with Angular. You can do some nasty things though if you're not careful though, definitely agree with that. If you have flaws elsewhere in your codebase, including the backend, it may be possible that in practice, the effects may trickle down to your frontend code with Angular - it has happened in an app I've worked on with a couple of other developers, in which flaws with the api performance caused us to implement some subpar workarounds that triggered many $digests & forced us to spend a day or two on just optimization. Angular can be quite fast compared to jQuery in an app of substance. It is not constantly reading/writing to the DOM in most cases, which saves a lot on the performance front. It is also a smaller library than jQuery, and you're not naively applying global or complicated selectors. Plugins rewritten to be pure javascript + Angular also can have a much smaller footprint & be more powerful to boot, such as the Angular UI Bootstrap project (5 KB minified & gzipped as opposed to 15-35 KB? I forget Bootstrap's js size) & contains all of the power of Angular to modify your functionality with them & more.
Zelphyr 13y ago
> bloat, which one should (ideally) refactor out later How do you refactor out bloat from a framework without throwing away the framework? This is my whole point about not using frameworks. They're a siren that WILL eat you in the end.

sebular 13y ago

I don't like rewriting boilerplate code for every new project-- as I see it, Angular is to jQuery what jQuery is to raw JS, just in terms of reimplementing basic functions for the nth time. Of course, if a framework automates a ton of functionality, it'll naturally be inappropriate for certain projects. I wouldn't try to use Angular for an HTML 5 game, for example, though there's a good chance I wouldn't use jQuery either.

caitp 13y ago
> I wouldn't try to use Angular for an HTML 5 game, for example, though there's a good chance I wouldn't use jQuery either. I actually did use Angular for an HTML5 game last week as part of a demo for a conference. Admittedly it was a really simple game (tic tac toe), and it did use Polymer as well as angular, as sort of an experiment. But it worked pretty well, and only took about a day and a half to hack together, with realtime multiplayer and chat using socket.io. Obviously you're going to run into things that Angular is not really ideal for, but we are trying to make it do what it does very, very well, so in the future it should be suitable for pretty much any mobile or desktop app. --- This sounds like evangelism, which is not my intent, you're absolutely right about what you're saying, but it's true, sometimes a framework works (and saves a ton of time) that you'd otherwise spend hacking together something awful. Hopefully this mithril thing also saves people a ton of time without them having to worry about numerous other issues.

anton-107 13y ago

Frameworks add to codebase maintainability, not to user experience.