> Yes, a prerequisite to using a JavaScript framework is understanding prototypical inheritance Obviously, but you shouldn't have to care about prototypical in

> Yes, a prerequisite to using a JavaScript framework is understanding prototypical inheritance Obviously, but you shouldn't have to care about prototypical inheritance for simple databinding. The way view-models work in Angular leads to some complicated scenarios which, in my opinion, shouldn't exist in the first place (http://toddmotto.com/all-about-angulars-emit-broadcast-on-publish-subscribing/ http://toddmotto.com/all-about-angulars-emit-broadcast-on-pu...). > What? See https://medium.com/@kentcdodds/counting-angularjs-watchers-11c5134dc2ef https://medium.com/@kentcdodds/counting-angularjs-watchers-1... for an explanation. > To date I haven't seen a coherent argument against Angular; complaints seem focused around having to learn framework specific syntax (present in any large MVC framework) or the perceived "heaviness" of the framework (suggesting the apps you're building aren't complex enough to justify something like Angular) I have no problem with learning framework specific syntax and Angular is actually lightweight, both from an architecture and from a code weight point of view. What I do find problematic in Angular are some design decisions which often lead to complicated, and non-beautiful, code. Angular is no doubt incredibly useful, even for smaller apps, and I'm grateful for its existence. It is a step in the right direction. But I do think it has room for improvement.