Comment by yummybear | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummybear | Hacker News Reader

Here we go again. This article is so obviously biased it's laughable. Right from the "Everybody knows about the bumpy road to mastering Angular" to the cherry picking about templates: "Yeah angular wins, but with this third party component React ties again!".

Here are some other golden nuggets:

"React makes it simple to control the performance. If you implement shouldComponentUpdate, you can choose which comparison you prefer - model or presentation." (Oh, "performance" have never been simpler.)

"React gives you the freedom to choose, without the performance penalty. The outcome really depends on whether you're a good coder or a bad coder." (So Angular is slow regardless of you are a "good" or "bad" coder, but React performance depends on you "goodness" - check)

"When something doesn't work in Angular directives, one option is to re-write the code in a different way because there's so much magic going on." (Or you could - like try to find out why something in your directive doesn't work?)

I guess I'm not clear on why the statement Everybody knows about the bumpy road to mastering Angular shows a bias. I've never met a dev who found Angular easy to pick up. In fact, the rest of the original sentence describes exactly how learning Angular goes for everyone I've spoken about it with: it's quick to get started, then it improves and deteriorates as you go along. Emphasis on the "deteriorates".

EDIT: Moreover, your quotation about performance is from the section on "model complexity", where the original authors were far too generous to Angular. The model of an Angular app is tightly coupled to the Angular system, whereas a React app model is just a POJO.

Angular has been one of the easiest to pick up javascript frameworks I've worked with.

Easy to start, sure, but try building a complete non-trivial application from scratch.

What would you conclude to be the single most important issue/hurdle/constraint about Angular when moving from simple app to a non-trivial application? (Genuine question)

Going from a simple single-controller to multiple controllers, services, and the rest was a hurdle I never managed to cross. I understand the principles involved, but actually going from "Here's my complete data model, handled by this controller" to "Here's an angular application with a number of controllers and services" isn't something I've managed to do. (Although this is also not something I've had to do professionally so it's not been a focus for me.)

Inertia. The best practice for many reasons is to structure your app as lots of little components, and doing that in Angular is too hard, mostly because every component is at least three files, likely spread out in different places in the folder structure. The overhead of refactoring a component into smaller pieces is huge, since you have to independently split the template, the scope, and the dependencies.

All of the things that seem useful about Angular become a burden at scale. ng-repeat is my favorite example: try repeating more than a few hundred non-trivial components and you'll quickly choke the browser. You end up having to spend most of the application development time figuring out how to do things in a way that doesn't make Angular too upset.

I couldn't agree more. It was my first JS framework, and after 10-12 hours of tutorials I was already building a rather large application with it.

The process was also easy for my coworkers, granted they had someone to ask questions from.

I honestly cannot understand this criticism of the framework being hard.

I like Angular a lot, and didn't find it too difficult to pick up.

I had spent a couple of years prior working with WPF which is MVVM based, so I was already familiar with that way of thinking, which maybe helped me out.

I think Angular 2 is going to catch a lot of people by surprise, if they haven't been keeping up though. It's all component based so I've been restructuring my apps so that everything is a component, which means that an upgrade shouldn't be too painful!

I've seen a number of Angular apps though where directives aren't even used, and those people are going to find upgrading to 2.0 pretty much impossible without an entire rewrite I think! Maybe I'm wrong!

It's one of angular's chief strengths that it's easy to pick up. That's my perception anyways. I think that statement about difficulty to master applies more to Ember.js than anything.

I don't think it's trying to be unbiased. The article is about how they came to their conclusion to use React, so of course it's biased! It's just their opinion. Could you write such a comparison and have it actually be useful without including your opinions?

It's obviously anecdotal and not a rigourous breakdown.

I have no experience with React but what little experience I have with Angular makes me think I would come to the same biased conclusion... Angular was just a massive pain to work with if it's basic functionality didn't match your use case. Of course, I was probably "doing it wrong" but that only speaks to the "bumpy road to mastering Angular" the author speaks of.

That and didn't Angular basically get overhauled recently, or is slated to?

foreach(Feature f in AngularJS.Features) { RIP(f); }

Reply on news.ycombinator.com