3 ms·

> I'm going to wager you haven't used, or are even aware of, "literally every frontend framework ever created," so we can agree you're being hyperbolic. The de

> I'm going to wager you haven't used, or are even aware of, "literally every frontend framework ever created," so we can agree you're being hyperbolic. The definition of a framework is abstraction. That's not hyperbole, that's fact. Frankly abstraction is programming since all programming languages are is an abstraction of machine code. I'm not going to bother responding to you point to point, since I made valid counterpoints that you are hardly qualified to dictate as "not valid". The OP's post was opinionated half-truths designed to be pissy about Angular because that's what the Cool Kids(TM) do these days. It's gotten boring... But hey, it won't be but a moment before more boring people have more boring complaints about React. Naivety has no end.

ssmoot 12y ago
> "The definition of a framework is abstraction." It's actually "a basic structure". Which seems to work much better. Your definition would make this: trait Storage { def put(path: String)(bytes: TraversableOnce[Byte]): Unit def get(path: String): TraversableOnce[Byte] def rm(path: String): Unit } A Framework. Which is obviously wrong. Reusing a basic structure to short circuit some engineering tasks and hopefully accelerate the development of others. That's a Framework.
- jhall1468 12y ago
  You do understand the difference between oversimplification and being wrong, yes? But the funny part: "Reusing a basic structure to short circuit some engineering tasks" So, you mean abstracting away some difficult task?
hippich 12y ago
It is funny how you bring up another "Cool Kids" tech aka react.js, which is not even comparable to angular's scope in the first place. React at best is abstraction on view layer. And over engineered one, btw. If you want to have separate view layer with little binding boilerplate I personally recommend checking ractive.js (this is only view part! not a full framework, so don't try to compare it to angular) Also it is not "Cool Kids" thing, it is personal observation how backwards some angular solutions are from working for a year on large team and large angular project and reading ALOT on all possible best practices.
- jhall1468 12y ago
  You miss the point. The Cool Kids comments was about how it's become fashionable to talk down about every new framework, UI library or whatever that becomes "big" because something 12 people use is OBVIOUSLY so much better. To me much of this "this is better because this" is a lack of understanding your tool and/or personal bias leaking into the design decision for a piece of software. I like Angular for what it is and using it on a year long project with a large team on a large project suggests that your decision makers did virtually NO research on what Angular excels at. The problem (judging based on your small comment history on this thread) suggests that Angular isn't a problem, it's that EVERYTHING is over-engineered if it's not modular. And while I appreciate the modular approach having many benefits over non-modular frameworks, pretending that it's "The Only Way" is just as silly as pretending Angular is the answer for everything.
  - hippich 12y ago
    As i mentioned in other reply, you are wrong about reasons I dislike angular and why I can not recommend it to newcomers. Reason is - incorrect foundation of the whole framework, the rest is just consequences of it. Angular 2.x might change whole picture, but, again, it will be totally different beast. To the point that I am not sure it is reasonable to call it angular anymore, except for marketing purposes. In fact if you spend a bit of time to see where from creator came, you understand why he did what he did. Also, if you had experience with server-side mvc frameworks you find all these concept very familiar. Also, if you built any type of complex client-side application, you will find, that server-side MVC concepts, based on single request = single response are not appropriate for long living client-side apps. Sorry, there is just lack of perspective on your side and there is not much we can argue about.

ssmoot 12y ago

> "The definition of a framework is abstraction." It's actually "a basic structure". Which seems to work much better. Your definition would make this: trait Storage { def put(path: String)(bytes: TraversableOnce[Byte]): Unit def get(path: String): TraversableOnce[Byte] def rm(path: String): Unit } A Framework. Which is obviously wrong. Reusing a basic structure to short circuit some engineering tasks and hopefully accelerate the development of others. That's a Framework.

jhall1468 12y ago
You do understand the difference between oversimplification and being wrong, yes? But the funny part: "Reusing a basic structure to short circuit some engineering tasks" So, you mean abstracting away some difficult task?

hippich 12y ago

It is funny how you bring up another "Cool Kids" tech aka react.js, which is not even comparable to angular's scope in the first place. React at best is abstraction on view layer. And over engineered one, btw. If you want to have separate view layer with little binding boilerplate I personally recommend checking ractive.js (this is only view part! not a full framework, so don't try to compare it to angular) Also it is not "Cool Kids" thing, it is personal observation how backwards some angular solutions are from working for a year on large team and large angular project and reading ALOT on all possible best practices.

jhall1468 12y ago
You miss the point. The Cool Kids comments was about how it's become fashionable to talk down about every new framework, UI library or whatever that becomes "big" because something 12 people use is OBVIOUSLY so much better. To me much of this "this is better because this" is a lack of understanding your tool and/or personal bias leaking into the design decision for a piece of software. I like Angular for what it is and using it on a year long project with a large team on a large project suggests that your decision makers did virtually NO research on what Angular excels at. The problem (judging based on your small comment history on this thread) suggests that Angular isn't a problem, it's that EVERYTHING is over-engineered if it's not modular. And while I appreciate the modular approach having many benefits over non-modular frameworks, pretending that it's "The Only Way" is just as silly as pretending Angular is the answer for everything.
- hippich 12y ago
  As i mentioned in other reply, you are wrong about reasons I dislike angular and why I can not recommend it to newcomers. Reason is - incorrect foundation of the whole framework, the rest is just consequences of it. Angular 2.x might change whole picture, but, again, it will be totally different beast. To the point that I am not sure it is reasonable to call it angular anymore, except for marketing purposes. In fact if you spend a bit of time to see where from creator came, you understand why he did what he did. Also, if you had experience with server-side mvc frameworks you find all these concept very familiar. Also, if you built any type of complex client-side application, you will find, that server-side MVC concepts, based on single request = single response are not appropriate for long living client-side apps. Sorry, there is just lack of perspective on your side and there is not much we can argue about.