3 ms·
Your rambling incoherence makes your point hard to understand. So you're saying that there's no risk of vendor lock-in by relying on Angular's dependency injec
by shangxiao 12y ago
Your rambling incoherence makes your point hard to understand. So you're saying that there's no risk of vendor lock-in by relying on Angular's dependency injection, which isn't used by other libraries? Gotcha.
Edit: Oh and it isn't polite to write things like "That's bullshit", then come back and edit it out later on without flagging that you've edited your code.
- kaonashi 12y agoI think he's referring to the tight coupling between the object system and the data-binding/dom-update mechanisms. React and Angular are both able to avoid those.
- aikah 12y ago> Your rambling incoherence makes your point hard to understand. So you're saying that there's no risk of vendor lock-in by relying on Angular's dependency injection, which isn't used by other libraries? Gotcha. > Edit: Oh and it isn't polite to write things like "That's bullshit", then come back and edit it out later on without flagging that you've edited your code. You look frustrated, you sound you chose the wrong framework then came here to complain about those who made a smarter choice. But you're not saying anything,other than arguing on the form.
- shangxiao 12y agoNot really. I use Angular. A lot. I'm not so convinced that it is an "easy opt-out".