3 ms·
That's why I wrote "for reference". jQuery, of course, is a different kind of library. A proper argument would be: jQuery has about three times the contributor
by skore 12y ago
That's why I wrote "for reference". jQuery, of course, is a different kind of library.
A proper argument would be: jQuery has about three times the contributors that mootools has. If I had to decide between mootools and jQuery, I'd pick the second because of that metric alone, yes. (And this is how the market ended up playing out.)
Angular (born Jan 2010) has 2.5 times the number of contributors of ember (born Apr 2011), 5 times of React (born May 2013). I'm not just trying to find a reason to dismiss React and I do realize that it is still young. From a business standpoint, though, the choice couldn't possibly be any clearer.
I do agree that React has gathered a sizable crowd in a short time and it's definitely on my list of projects that I keep an eye on. But it's simply too young to warrant the same kind of investment that I have personally made into Angular.
- mateuszf 12y ago> But it's simply too young to warrant the same kind of investment that I have personally made into Angular. Sure .. it makes sense. Though one of the main selling points of React is that it's dead easy.
- rdtsc 12y agoPro-tip: Instead of pointing to forks and contributors, and complicated metrics, you'd do better advocating for Angular on this site if you instead point to benefits of the technology itself. We are big boys and girls here we can take the technical details. No need to use all these external proxies.