4 ms·

The article didn't mention my favourite (ha) pet peeve with Angular, error handling, which makes me wonder about if everyone else doesn't have that problem: eve

by nyir 12y ago

The article didn't mention my favourite (ha) pet peeve with Angular, error handling, which makes me wonder about if everyone else doesn't have that problem: even after working with the framework for a couple of months now, I still run, about every other week, into the issue that if something doesn't work, there is exactly zero indication of that. Most prominently misspelled names and parameters of directives. You're lucky if you get an error in the Javascript console, if you happen to have that open all the time. To me that's infuriating. I get that Javascript isn't Haskell (and I don't even want to go that far into that direction), but the combination of extreme leniency and the remarkable absence of checks is really bad.

baudehlo 12y ago
Yeah I find it very odd that ng-click="some_function()" doesn't throw up any kind of error if that function isn't defined on the scope (even when you click). Very very frustrating (though maybe I'm missing some setting?).
serve_yay 12y ago
That is a huge reason why I like to do as little "programming" as possible in templates. When something goes wrong, you either don't hear about it or if you do hear about it, you don't get a stack trace and so forth. Or, you can't find out where in the template the problem is, and instead get a stack trace full of internals of your templating library/framework.
wmil 12y ago
I can see why they did that. Null/undefined checks in templates are messy and ugly, and there are a lot of cases where objects on the scope won't be ready when the scoped element is first rendered. Templates shouldn't be throwing exceptions for something like customer.name when customer is null. Angular's rendering tries to do something sane by default in a very common case. If it really bothers you, you can easily write your own click-log-error directive that writes to the console if the function isn't defined. Actually thanks to Angular's DI system you can replace the base ng-click with one that does throw an error.
- nyir 12y ago
  I didn't mean the template part in particular, rather think directive arguments, scoping behaviour (the dreaded "wrap your value in an object if you want data-binding"). Sure, not rendering a null value is, while I disagree, a possible choice and certainly useful in certain contexts. However the point about objects not ready should IMO be rather fixed by delaying until the object is ready and I'm actually horsing that if possible so that no uninitialised state is visible at any point. And again, for production mode you mostly don't want exceptions to pop up, but a strict mode for development is useful. Otherwise someone (who? the customers won't notice this way) has to tell me that some values don't show up (yes, modulo testing). Replacing those handlers is actually a very interesting idea, I'll try and see how that goes.

by nyir 12y ago

baudehlo 12y ago

Yeah I find it very odd that ng-click="some_function()" doesn't throw up any kind of error if that function isn't defined on the scope (even when you click). Very very frustrating (though maybe I'm missing some setting?).

serve_yay 12y ago

That is a huge reason why I like to do as little "programming" as possible in templates. When something goes wrong, you either don't hear about it or if you do hear about it, you don't get a stack trace and so forth. Or, you can't find out where in the template the problem is, and instead get a stack trace full of internals of your templating library/framework.

wmil 12y ago

I can see why they did that. Null/undefined checks in templates are messy and ugly, and there are a lot of cases where objects on the scope won't be ready when the scoped element is first rendered. Templates shouldn't be throwing exceptions for something like customer.name when customer is null. Angular's rendering tries to do something sane by default in a very common case. If it really bothers you, you can easily write your own click-log-error directive that writes to the console if the function isn't defined. Actually thanks to Angular's DI system you can replace the base ng-click with one that does throw an error.

nyir 12y ago
I didn't mean the template part in particular, rather think directive arguments, scoping behaviour (the dreaded "wrap your value in an object if you want data-binding"). Sure, not rendering a null value is, while I disagree, a possible choice and certainly useful in certain contexts. However the point about objects not ready should IMO be rather fixed by delaying until the object is ready and I'm actually horsing that if possible so that no uninitialised state is visible at any point. And again, for production mode you mostly don't want exceptions to pop up, but a strict mode for development is useful. Otherwise someone (who? the customers won't notice this way) has to tell me that some values don't show up (yes, modulo testing). Replacing those handlers is actually a very interesting idea, I'll try and see how that goes.