3 ms·
1: You shouldn't be using bootstrap, even though you can with angular. 2: What do you need to do in the front end that can't be accomplished the 'angular way'?
by amsheehan 12y ago
1: You shouldn't be using bootstrap, even though you can with angular.
2: What do you need to do in the front end that can't be accomplished the 'angular way'? I'm not sure you understand what monolithic really means. The beauty part of angular is that you can use it as little or as much as you'd like in your web applications.
3: Angular 2 is going to be preeeetty much only ecma6. Also, understanding angular means you understand AMD, digest cycles, etc... totally applicable to other frameworks.
4: What are you even talking about?
- JanezStupar 12y agoI will believe Angular 2.0 cures cancer when I see it[1]. Ok? Regarding your other statements - you are saying the same things I am. I can do everything I could do otherwise, just at the expense of a lot of overhead I would not have if I didn't use Angular in the first place. [1]: When it materializes. Edit: > understanding angular means you understand AMD This is a load of bullcrap. __Nobody__ understands AMD, it is a cargo cult. Just like the SOAP was. And yes I think Angular (in its present form) is a cargo cult. That's what I meant with the SOAP thing. For the record I use RequireJS on pretty much every project nowadays, but not because I like it - merely because my clients want to use it.
- jtreminio 12y ago> 1: You shouldn't be using bootstrap, even though you can with angular. Why in the world would you say that
- artmageddon 12y agoWhat's wrong with Bootstrap?