4 ms·
> I understand why people still use e.g. Angular, > but only for the same reason as why people still use PHP: legacy. Not an Angular lover, but devs use Angul
by camus2 13y ago
> I understand why people still use e.g. Angular,
> but only for the same reason as why people still use PHP: legacy.
Not an Angular lover, but devs use Angular because it's the quickest way to build LOB clients with javascript. It's no legacy or whatever,just pragmatism. People coming from flex/wpf know what I mean.
Angular doesnt answer all problems and is not for all use cases but for LOB clients it handles 90% of use cases and problems. Same cannot be said for React without 3rd party libraries.
No framework can ever be a silverbullet, I would not use Angular for an app with a lot of transitional states and animations.
In theory you could use React with Angular but frankly I dont see the point.
> but only for the same reason as why people still use PHP: legacy
? You just cant compare apples and oranges, a javascript framework and a serverside scripting language.
- danford 13y agoAngularjs first release was about 6 years ago so it's hardly legacy. It's almost as if the OP was trying to plug React.. Anyway, in my experience angular is half the code, half the time, and half the cost. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Angularjs http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Angularjs Well will you look at that, angular seems to never get less popular.
- mst 13y ago> In theory you could use React with Angular but frankly I dont see the point. The idea of react as a better compositor for angular keeps iterating back around in my head, which makes me wonder if a sort of 'final answer' will turn out to be somewhere between the two - a $watch isn't that much different to a reactive stream if you squint, after all.