4 ms·
Yes and no. I'd say that Angular has one of the steepest learning curves of the single-page-application frameworks out there. And it's not necessarily intuitive
by MalcolmDiggs 11y ago
Yes and no. I'd say that Angular has one of the steepest learning curves of the single-page-application frameworks out there. And it's not necessarily intuitive in some areas. But once you get rolling (and the Angular way becomes muscle-memory) then you don't spend nearly as much time.
But yes I agree on your general point: In the beginning you don't feel like you're saving time using Angular. That is, unless you were used to rigging up two-way-binding (and other fanciness) manually before you used Angular. If you've ever tried to do such things in plain javascript, then Angular will prob feel like a timesaver.
- lewisl9029 11y agoA lot of the bad rep about Angular results from the fact that it gives users too much rope to hang themselves with. I worked at an Angular focused consultancy for a while, and have seen some absolutely horrifying (inherited) Angular codebases precisely due to overuse of controller spaghetti code and scope inheritance. On the other hand, our own greenfield projects have been a pleasure to work with because they focus on implementing most functionality in services rather than in controllers and using services for communication between directives over scope inheritance. Angular 2 tries to cut back on some of the oft misused features like controllers and scope inheritance, but it's essentially an entirely new framework because of it. There's no clear upgrade path if you've been using these features gratuitously in your project, in which case you'd probably be better off doing some heavy refactoring, if not a rewrite, anyways. And as far as new frameworks are concerned, React + Om is a much better way to build applications than Angular 2 in my opinion.