3 ms·

This is not even ES6, its some weird abomination (AtScript) on top of ES6. We definitely wont be switching to Angular 2.0. Hello React.

by spion 12y ago

zghst 12y ago
While terribly written and in poor format, it has some semblance to ES6.
Cthulhu_ 12y ago
I like how a lot of people see React as a full-on alternative to AngularJS. It's not, React is just for the view (think jQuery), you'll need other components or a lot of manual work to build a full application with React.
- lowboy 12y ago
  > React is just for the view (think jQuery) That is comparing apples to oranges. I agree that React is a view layer, but jQuery is most definitely not. The only thing they have in common is that they (usually) act on the DOM in some way. Agreed on your point about needing other components/architecture to use React.
- zghst 12y ago
  React's V and Angular's V aren't entirely compatible, in fact it's be nasty to use them together. Sure it's not a full alternative, but I believe when people are saying React, they are inferring that they will be using Flux with React (Or Backbone, Knockout, etc). React can be much more than just a view. Even before integrating Flux or a lightweight library, React can be powerful.
- spion 12y ago
  The awkward DI/module system, I'm fine with loosing that. The router I will probably miss, but there are decent router components for react. Services, factories and providers? Rather big words for some insignificant differences. The only thing I'll really miss is simple data-binding - but it has too high of a performance cost anyway. Simpler server-side rendering and testing will more than make up for that. Looking at directives vs react components, it seems like many Angular features are just workarounds for some of its design choices. What bugs me the most is the cognitive dissonance caused by what I'm reading about the new Angular. Its supposed to be more modular. Yet the thinking shown on these slides is quite the opposite: * it introduces attribute changes in the markup that seem disharmonious with CSS selector syntax. * it now also coupled with a new language in order to be used sensibly, which reintroduces annotations - another language-in-language that may lack the proper design care to make it composable and usable (e.g. how do you combine 5 annotations into one? I have no idea, guess you'll have to copy-paste them) In short, to me it seems like Angular 2.0 is intent on going forward with adding even more complexity while breaking backward compatibility. "More modular" is not what I'm seeing here at all.
  - spion 12y ago
    Oh, now I get it. The whole reason that AtScript exists is because they just can't give up the desire to have that bizarre Javaesque IoC container.

This is not even ES6, its some weird abomination (AtScript) on top of ES6. We definitely wont be switching to Angular 2.0. Hello React.

by spion 12y ago

This is not even ES6, its some weird abomination (AtScript) on top of ES6. We definitely wont be switching to Angular 2.0. Hello React.

zghst 12y ago

While terribly written and in poor format, it has some semblance to ES6.

Cthulhu_ 12y ago

I like how a lot of people see React as a full-on alternative to AngularJS. It's not, React is just for the view (think jQuery), you'll need other components or a lot of manual work to build a full application with React.

lowboy 12y ago
> React is just for the view (think jQuery) That is comparing apples to oranges. I agree that React is a view layer, but jQuery is most definitely not. The only thing they have in common is that they (usually) act on the DOM in some way. Agreed on your point about needing other components/architecture to use React.
zghst 12y ago
React's V and Angular's V aren't entirely compatible, in fact it's be nasty to use them together. Sure it's not a full alternative, but I believe when people are saying React, they are inferring that they will be using Flux with React (Or Backbone, Knockout, etc). React can be much more than just a view. Even before integrating Flux or a lightweight library, React can be powerful.
spion 12y ago
The awkward DI/module system, I'm fine with loosing that. The router I will probably miss, but there are decent router components for react. Services, factories and providers? Rather big words for some insignificant differences. The only thing I'll really miss is simple data-binding - but it has too high of a performance cost anyway. Simpler server-side rendering and testing will more than make up for that. Looking at directives vs react components, it seems like many Angular features are just workarounds for some of its design choices. What bugs me the most is the cognitive dissonance caused by what I'm reading about the new Angular. Its supposed to be more modular. Yet the thinking shown on these slides is quite the opposite: * it introduces attribute changes in the markup that seem disharmonious with CSS selector syntax. * it now also coupled with a new language in order to be used sensibly, which reintroduces annotations - another language-in-language that may lack the proper design care to make it composable and usable (e.g. how do you combine 5 annotations into one? I have no idea, guess you'll have to copy-paste them) In short, to me it seems like Angular 2.0 is intent on going forward with adding even more complexity while breaking backward compatibility. "More modular" is not what I'm seeing here at all.
- spion 12y ago
  Oh, now I get it. The whole reason that AtScript exists is because they just can't give up the desire to have that bizarre Javaesque IoC container.