3 ms·

I don't really understand why there is a need to simplify something like AngularJS. Kudos for building something but I'd rather stick with the battle tested ver

I don't really understand why there is a need to simplify something like AngularJS. Kudos for building something but I'd rather stick with the battle tested version thanks. If you're building a single page app then the initial payload isn't a big deal anyway, so I don't really care if it's a few KB less. Your simple example is (IMO) more complicated than the AngularJS version, and Sentinel JS requires Jquery: https://angularjs.org/ https://angularjs.org/ Please correct me if I'm wrong, just don't see the benefit of using this over AngularJS, you're ultimately going to want more functionality anyway.

imakesnowflakes 12y ago
> Kudos for building something but I'd rather stick with the battle tested version thanks... Thanks. And what you say is only reasonable. I wouldn't imagine Sentinel.js to be any where near as stable as Angular.js. I rewrote the whole thing three times, to get the code in a manageable form. There are tests that cover most of the functionality. Since there are only a handful of directives, there are actually less 'moving parts' than something big like angular.js. But still, there are a lot of things that can go wrong for some combination of directives. And can you please tell me which example you found more complicated than the angular version? Also can you think of any use case that something like this would fail to meet?