Angular 2 – Best Practises(blog.budacode.com)
blog.budacode.com
Angular 2 – Best Practises
https://blog.budacode.com/2016/06/27/angular-2-best-practises/?utm_source=hackernews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=angular2-best-practises
93 comments
It has been given the enterprise treatment. Enterprise devs love big.
Do they? I also share the same feeling as GP. On one of our projects we have made the decision to use the Angular framework and I do regret that choice now.
After having gone around the SPA framework circuit, I'm back to using jQuery, routing with PathJS, and templating with Jade (compiled using a Browserify transform). It's just so much simpler to understand. No magic, and I have yet to run into any problems. If I needed more complex model stuff, maybe I would throw in Backbone.
I know these tools don't keep your code organized, but it doesn't prevent you from organizing it either. And I really do hate all the levels of indirection the monolithic SPA frameworks seem to throw in your face.
PathJS: https://github.com/mtrpcic/pathjs
Jadeify: https://github.com/domenic/jadeify
I know these tools don't keep your code organized, but it doesn't prevent you from organizing it either. And I really do hate all the levels of indirection the monolithic SPA frameworks seem to throw in your face.
PathJS: https://github.com/mtrpcic/pathjs
Jadeify: https://github.com/domenic/jadeify
I've done the same. In production, I've used jQuery, Dojo, and ExtJS. On side projects, I've used React, Clojurescript, and Angular 1. I don't like any of them. I'm back to using pjax.
pjax doesn't get enough love on HN :) Recently I got to use a pjax clone called smoothstate which splits up the pjax change event in just the right places to get fancy transitions going. Really enjoying it too!
Smoothstate: https://github.com/miguel-perez/smoothState.js
You can see how i used it at http://zviwaldman.com when you click any link.
Smoothstate: https://github.com/miguel-perez/smoothState.js
You can see how i used it at http://zviwaldman.com when you click any link.
I'm eagerly awaiting a time when "the community" again allows this to be an acceptable alternative. Not that I wouldn't just go ahead and choose this.
Could someone tell me one-or-more reasons to choose Angular for a new project, now that the React ecosystem is mature enough to compete with it?
As I feel that from a conceptual/architectural point of view Angular is simply on a loosing path.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=angular%20tutorial%2...
As I feel that from a conceptual/architectural point of view Angular is simply on a loosing path.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=angular%20tutorial%2...
Essentially it boils down to whether you prefer a cohesive all-in-one framework/platform (angular2) or a collection of semi- and fully-independent libraries (react). Pretending that one of those options is the right fit for everyone is not productive.
The only thing really missing from Angular 2 compared to the React ecosystem is jsx. Angular 2 and RxJS (and if you want throw in ngrx/store) allows a heavy focus on immutability, unidirectional data flow, centralized state, etc. that ends up very similar to the React ecosystem conceptually.
Both allow native cross-platform mobile with React Native (react) and NativeScript (angular2), and Angular 2 also gives you a nice hybrid/webview option with Ionic 2. Angular 2 also gives you a bit tighter integration with TypeScript, if that is your preference (which it is mine).
Personally, for me, I like both a lot but the full-framework and tight TypeScript integration fit my use cases and personality better.
The only thing really missing from Angular 2 compared to the React ecosystem is jsx. Angular 2 and RxJS (and if you want throw in ngrx/store) allows a heavy focus on immutability, unidirectional data flow, centralized state, etc. that ends up very similar to the React ecosystem conceptually.
Both allow native cross-platform mobile with React Native (react) and NativeScript (angular2), and Angular 2 also gives you a nice hybrid/webview option with Ionic 2. Angular 2 also gives you a bit tighter integration with TypeScript, if that is your preference (which it is mine).
Personally, for me, I like both a lot but the full-framework and tight TypeScript integration fit my use cases and personality better.
I don't think JSX fits Angular 2 - it sticks to "views are markup based and code is in controller" traditional MVC which I prefer to JSX.
You mentioned TS but I feel like you understated it - it's the selling point for me. I have used TS + React but it's not the same thing - Angular was written with/for TS and it uses it to leverage all the advantages. React migrated from ES5 to incrementally add ES6 support and it shows. Also nobody uses flow outside of React unlike TS which has a decent community even outside of Angular and plenty of 3rd party type definitions.
You mentioned TS but I feel like you understated it - it's the selling point for me. I have used TS + React but it's not the same thing - Angular was written with/for TS and it uses it to leverage all the advantages. React migrated from ES5 to incrementally add ES6 support and it shows. Also nobody uses flow outside of React unlike TS which has a decent community even outside of Angular and plenty of 3rd party type definitions.
> TS which has a decent community even outside of Angular
We've converted all our node backends to typescript. It's been a game-changer in productivity.
We've converted all our node backends to typescript. It's been a game-changer in productivity.
Definitely agree about the deep TypeScript integration with Angular 2 due to it being written in TypeScript. That is the core reason I prefer it, it is absolutely awesome in that regard. (And the same is true with RxJS).
I'm using typescript with React right now...and typescript does a decent job with jsx checking.
(saved me from a lot of missing / wrong prop name errors)
anyway, does typescript support some kind of template-string validation for angular2? If so, I'm going to really re-consider angular2 for my next project
anyway, does typescript support some kind of template-string validation for angular2? If so, I'm going to really re-consider angular2 for my next project
Typescript doesn't directly, but Angular2 does (or will, this is just coming online) - our offline compiler converts your html templates into TS, and then regular TS typechecking can take over.
See https://github.com/microsoft/typescript/issues/6508 (and the GIF!)
See https://github.com/microsoft/typescript/issues/6508 (and the GIF!)
> does typescript support some kind of template-string validation for angular2
No, and that's the reason I mention jsx as a missing feature from Angular 2. There is no compile time or refactoring support for templates, whereas with TypeScript and jsx you get that.
No, and that's the reason I mention jsx as a missing feature from Angular 2. There is no compile time or refactoring support for templates, whereas with TypeScript and jsx you get that.
If you run that some trends report - but with "Angular 2" - that shows a much higher uptake:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=angular%20tutorial%2...
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=angular%20tutorial%2...
Here is the same for CA:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore#cmpt=q&geo=US-CA&q=ang...
The takeaway of course is that most of those probably want to pick up Angular 2 because they used Angular.
I made a conscious switch from Angular to React because React (and the flux pattern) really did reinvent how web components are built and it's incredibly intuitive. I simply don't see the same innovation in Angular 2 apart from 'we made Angular more modern'
I made a conscious switch from Angular to React because React (and the flux pattern) really did reinvent how web components are built and it's incredibly intuitive. I simply don't see the same innovation in Angular 2 apart from 'we made Angular more modern'
I'm learning front end dev for the first time, and I chose React - it didn't make sense to learn angular when react borrows so much from html that I can apply some concepts more directly.
I love the direct integration of async support in templates. You can extract the value of promises and observable directly in templates using the async pipe, which cuts down on a lot of boilerplate. That means your templates can directly subscribe to observables and auto update on changes. Awesome.
And there is first class support for component-scoped css, aka emulated shadow dom, which is great for large codebases.
And there is first class support for component-scoped css, aka emulated shadow dom, which is great for large codebases.
It's more mature now that the Angular 1 experiment is over
It's written in TypeScript, so you can write your frontend in TypeScript. Many bugs averted.
You can use a real reactive model (http://victorsavkin.com/post/137821436516/managing-state-in-...)
It's written in TypeScript, so you can write your frontend in TypeScript. Many bugs averted.
You can use a real reactive model (http://victorsavkin.com/post/137821436516/managing-state-in-...)
My impression is that a lot of "mature" (aka boring old) companies like Angular 1 and the sound of Angular 2 over React.
For a number of reasons:
- In general Java and C# programmers like it.
- It is made by Google (perceived as more "mature", business like) rather than Facebook (young kids).
- It takes a lot of inspiration from server side development with its dependency injection and general terminology.
- And TypeScript is very similar to Java and C#.
(The list is a slight caricature but I hope the general point is clear.)
For a number of reasons:
- In general Java and C# programmers like it.
- It is made by Google (perceived as more "mature", business like) rather than Facebook (young kids).
- It takes a lot of inspiration from server side development with its dependency injection and general terminology.
- And TypeScript is very similar to Java and C#.
(The list is a slight caricature but I hope the general point is clear.)
> My impression is that a lot of "mature" (aka boring old) companies like Angular 1 and the sound of Angular 2 over React.
React has been around for a while, but it is still only a library. Angular 1 and 2 are frameworks. Also Angular 2 is a complete rewrite and not even in final release. I'm not sure how that is boring or old.
As with Angular 1, Angular 2 aims to be opinionated, so it should be clearer how to do things than with React. Especially now with the move to components, Angular should be easier do more with, without as much confusion. And Angular 2 is much faster, if you do it right, which was one of the reasons Angular 1 was left for React.
React is fine for what it is. It's somewhat "matured" for a few years and is not a bad decision if you go with it.
I don't think that you should just jump on the latest JS bandwagon, but Angular 2 is more than just "for mature companies" and "similar to Java and C#".
Really, the only frustration we've had with Angular 2 so far has been that it has been changing so quickly, but it's starting to settle down now.
React has been around for a while, but it is still only a library. Angular 1 and 2 are frameworks. Also Angular 2 is a complete rewrite and not even in final release. I'm not sure how that is boring or old.
As with Angular 1, Angular 2 aims to be opinionated, so it should be clearer how to do things than with React. Especially now with the move to components, Angular should be easier do more with, without as much confusion. And Angular 2 is much faster, if you do it right, which was one of the reasons Angular 1 was left for React.
React is fine for what it is. It's somewhat "matured" for a few years and is not a bad decision if you go with it.
I don't think that you should just jump on the latest JS bandwagon, but Angular 2 is more than just "for mature companies" and "similar to Java and C#".
Really, the only frustration we've had with Angular 2 so far has been that it has been changing so quickly, but it's starting to settle down now.
> React has been around for a while, but it is still only a library.
You probably knew this already, but worth to point out that React never intended to be a framework.
This is a really interesting talk: http://2014.jsconf.eu/speakers/sebastian-markbage-minimal-ap...
You probably knew this already, but worth to point out that React never intended to be a framework.
This is a really interesting talk: http://2014.jsconf.eu/speakers/sebastian-markbage-minimal-ap...
The places I am referring to are not actually using Angular 2. They are using Angular 1 but like "the sound" of Angular 2.
Where the sound is the promise of a better tomorrow without actually looking at alternatives.
Where the sound is the promise of a better tomorrow without actually looking at alternatives.
> - And TypeScript is very similar to Java and C#.
react and typescript go hand in hand, now that typescript has .jsx support (as .tsx files)
react and typescript go hand in hand, now that typescript has .jsx support (as .tsx files)
Typescript really has more to offer with react. It type checks the jsx(tsx), Offers code completion on components and their properties, you can refactor/rename properties and components throughout your project without side effects. Typescript is kind of blind to angular templates.
React offers ability to use same code on server side and client side. Easier to test a Vdom library. It's a lot less complex, it's perf is a lot better, you can live edit. The biggest selling point is you can create native apps using native ui with a lot of code re-use.
React + ts definitely give you a bigger bang for buck. I spent 2.5 years of my life writing angular code. It definitely has some good ideas but I won't be investing so much of my time in angular 2 anymore.
React offers ability to use same code on server side and client side. Easier to test a Vdom library. It's a lot less complex, it's perf is a lot better, you can live edit. The biggest selling point is you can create native apps using native ui with a lot of code re-use.
React + ts definitely give you a bigger bang for buck. I spent 2.5 years of my life writing angular code. It definitely has some good ideas but I won't be investing so much of my time in angular 2 anymore.
I totally agree on "mature" (aka boring old). I make my income on enterprise and recommending React here would be like recommending Rails over Java or C#. Meaning possibility of landing contract would be significantly lower.
The only decision you have to make if you like opinionated frameworks or not.
Both ecosystems are vibrant enough to stay for the foreseeable future.
Both ecosystems are vibrant enough to stay for the foreseeable future.
One specific reason I am personally choosing Angular 2, is that the Ionic2 Framework also uses Angular 2 [0].
So I can re-use code from my front end website on my native mobile apps for the new startup I'm launching. Much less code = quicker time to MVP, and lower cost of development.
[0] http://blog.ionic.io/angular-2-ionic/
So I can re-use code from my front end website on my native mobile apps for the new startup I'm launching. Much less code = quicker time to MVP, and lower cost of development.
[0] http://blog.ionic.io/angular-2-ionic/
> So I can re-use code from my front end website on my native mobile apps for the new startup I'm launching.
Just to be clear, Ionic is _not_ native.
Just to be clear, Ionic is _not_ native.
While Ionic's not native, even Ionic 1 is close enough for most apps. Ionic 2 is supposed to be 3-5 times faster. So for startups that need both iOS and Android support, but have small teams, Ionic's 100% iOS-Android code reuse remakes a lot of sense.
Have you tried React with React Native[0]?
[0] https://facebook.github.io/react-native/
[0] https://facebook.github.io/react-native/
BTW to parent, one big advantage of react-native over ionic is that it's not a wrapped web app, but a javascript/react app that compiles to an actual native app.
The performance difference and development experience (no silly css hacks) is very noticeable.
The performance difference and development experience (no silly css hacks) is very noticeable.
Not to nitpick, but I don't believe react native "compiles" to a native app. The evaluation of the JS in JavaScript Core is passed of to native code to layout native views. The interactions are then posted back into jscore. So while closer to native compiled code performance, it's still a bit different.
Fair enough, I'm afraid I didn't explain it properly
In my experience code-share between React and React Native is extremely difficult as your UI code is so significantly different with native components and what not.
At least with Angular/Ionic you can directly share UI code between the two as its all HTML and CSS.
Still, I really enjoy working with React and React Native because I it's one API and mental model to learn.
At least with Angular/Ionic you can directly share UI code between the two as its all HTML and CSS.
Still, I really enjoy working with React and React Native because I it's one API and mental model to learn.
You might want to check out https://github.com/necolas/react-native-web - that has implementations for a lot of the React Native primitives on the web, to make code-sharing easier.
Have you tried it recently? I don't think I've had this problem with recent versions.
As did I and for the same exact reasons. I am the only dev on the project (it is a startup) and we need to get to MVP fast.
Actually this seem to depend a lot on the exact search term, look: https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%2Fm%2F012l1vxv%2C%2...
I'm not sure I'm on the bandwagon that believes that commingling JS, CSS and HTML into a single "component" is a great thing. I just don't understand...
There's a lot to be said for separating concerns and it's still good practice within your component. No-one is really disputing it afaik, but the way we are/were creating web pages are based on a document-centric paradigm.
Single Page Apps (SPAs) are more app-like than webpage-like and if you're really going for reusability then your components need to have a say in how they are rendered. That means they need to provide /some/ HTML.
You can still create components without including CSS but you'll likely need to provide structure (HTML) in order to bind behavior/callbacks/events to it. It's still good practice to separate rendering (HTML/JSX/NG) and behavior.
Single Page Apps (SPAs) are more app-like than webpage-like and if you're really going for reusability then your components need to have a say in how they are rendered. That means they need to provide /some/ HTML.
You can still create components without including CSS but you'll likely need to provide structure (HTML) in order to bind behavior/callbacks/events to it. It's still good practice to separate rendering (HTML/JSX/NG) and behavior.
Your link proves controversial point :)
Please stop wars "a vs r" - it's counterproductive. Knowledge sharing is much better. If you don't trust me - read Twitter of Dan Abramov.
Please stop wars "a vs r" - it's counterproductive. Knowledge sharing is much better. If you don't trust me - read Twitter of Dan Abramov.
I'm honestly not sure why React being more mature now would be a reason not to use Angular for a new project.
For Angular 1 vs. React, I would just say depending on the resources you have - for example if a team is very productive with Angular 1 & there isn't enough time to get a team to pivot skills, then it may make more sense to go with that from a business perspective.
IMO there is one main reason to choose Angular 2 over React currently - perf. Angular 2 has significant perf improvements over the other libraries/frameworks out there, and supports incremental rendering as opposed to React's render all at once model. Angular 2 also will have the best built-in animation support of the various libraries/frameworks out there, in part due to the Angular team's collaboration with the Chrome team (this is true with Angular 1 as well).
Otherwise, React is more mature than Angular 2 & has a simpler API. Conceptually, Angular 2 and React share much in common, and architectures should look similar between well written apps in both.
IMO there is one main reason to choose Angular 2 over React currently - perf. Angular 2 has significant perf improvements over the other libraries/frameworks out there, and supports incremental rendering as opposed to React's render all at once model. Angular 2 also will have the best built-in animation support of the various libraries/frameworks out there, in part due to the Angular team's collaboration with the Chrome team (this is true with Angular 1 as well).
Otherwise, React is more mature than Angular 2 & has a simpler API. Conceptually, Angular 2 and React share much in common, and architectures should look similar between well written apps in both.
I'm trying to find more info on angular 2 incremental rendering that you've mentioned.
I've despised angular since pre-1.0, mainly for performance reasons. Once the number of watchers hits 1000 or so, a browser will noticeably lag. A compete rerender will cause a noticeable freeze up.
I'm not currently using react either, but it's possible to do an incremental render through code, only rendering what needs rendering. React-dom will be needed to plug the result in the right spot.
I've despised angular since pre-1.0, mainly for performance reasons. Once the number of watchers hits 1000 or so, a browser will noticeably lag. A compete rerender will cause a noticeable freeze up.
I'm not currently using react either, but it's possible to do an incremental render through code, only rendering what needs rendering. React-dom will be needed to plug the result in the right spot.
What's the difference between Angular 2 and Reacts rendering? I was under the assumption that Angular 2 had implemented a shadow dom or something similar.
Not arguing that you are wrong, I just haven't kept up with any of Angular 2 and am genuinely curios.
Not arguing that you are wrong, I just haven't kept up with any of Angular 2 and am genuinely curios.
Both Angular and React rely on an AST - React uses jsdom, while Angular has a template compiler which constructs an AST from the template, and the renderer then can render from the AST as it determines. Angular can render templates with the inert template tag - this allows it to leverage browser caching for browsers supporting the template tag.
It also supports the shadow DOM through its style engine with the component decorator. One can either use native shadow DOM (and use a polyfill for the functionality), or use Angular 2's built-in virtual shadow DOM where it randomly generates unique attributes to style off of with the component decorator.
It also supports the shadow DOM through its style engine with the component decorator. One can either use native shadow DOM (and use a polyfill for the functionality), or use Angular 2's built-in virtual shadow DOM where it randomly generates unique attributes to style off of with the component decorator.
I've found it more straightforward to transition to Angular over from a more server-side setup gradually. The template language is at least in the same general area as template languages for Django, Rails, etc.
The general tooling process is pretty simple, no need to convince people of the merits of JSX.
Architecturally speaking many people still like separating presentation from business logic.
Angular has a lot of mature tooling and wrappings around current libraries. Angular also offers a lot more tooling on the side, React is much smaller.
On an architectural side, while React keeps states in components, the state update mechanism is a bit obtuse compared to Angular's "scopes are just objects" philosophy.
It's dependent on how you view things, but if you're working on things where strict component decomposition is hard, and you "like global state in your views", then Angular's state mechanism (controllers) could work better for you.
Some would also declare that the non-turing-complete-ness of the template language in Angular is a feature, not a bug.
The general tooling process is pretty simple, no need to convince people of the merits of JSX.
Architecturally speaking many people still like separating presentation from business logic.
Angular has a lot of mature tooling and wrappings around current libraries. Angular also offers a lot more tooling on the side, React is much smaller.
On an architectural side, while React keeps states in components, the state update mechanism is a bit obtuse compared to Angular's "scopes are just objects" philosophy.
It's dependent on how you view things, but if you're working on things where strict component decomposition is hard, and you "like global state in your views", then Angular's state mechanism (controllers) could work better for you.
Some would also declare that the non-turing-complete-ness of the template language in Angular is a feature, not a bug.
You separate your presentation from your business logic in React. What React gives you that Angular doesn't is the ability to separate your presentational logic from your business logic. Angular makes you put presentational logic in with your business logic because presentational logic simply cannot be expressed with the templating format.
I would argue that a distinction that you make yourself, based on your application's architecture is more meaningful and useful than one made by some arbitrary separation of source file formats.
I would argue that a distinction that you make yourself, based on your application's architecture is more meaningful and useful than one made by some arbitrary separation of source file formats.
All the React stuff is starting to sound a bit to me like "MongoDB is web-scale"
Not really. I think a key distinction is summed up in this quote:
"Angular 2 continues to put “JS” into HTML. React puts “HTML” into JS."
See: https://medium.freecodecamp.com/angular-2-versus-react-there...
This influences to some extent what you can do with the frameworks and how your code is organized. I like the fact that since my rendering is essentially JS in React, then I can structure my code better with OO to solve problems (inheritance where appropriate, helper classes, patterns etc). In Angular, its just a awful mess of ng-* statements for flow of control. All you can really do to tame it is to use composition or to mix-in behavior via directives.
"Angular 2 continues to put “JS” into HTML. React puts “HTML” into JS."
See: https://medium.freecodecamp.com/angular-2-versus-react-there...
This influences to some extent what you can do with the frameworks and how your code is organized. I like the fact that since my rendering is essentially JS in React, then I can structure my code better with OO to solve problems (inheritance where appropriate, helper classes, patterns etc). In Angular, its just a awful mess of ng-* statements for flow of control. All you can really do to tame it is to use composition or to mix-in behavior via directives.
Thanks for this!
This might have been mentioned already, but I do like that they're not reinventing the wheel with ng2 on every front and instead leveraging libraries that are either mature or likely to be the direction that web is heading. If you follow their quick start example you'll get Typescript, RxJS, SystemJS. RxJS is a very interesting beast that has been around for a long time in c# world and recently gained popularity in Javascript and implements what may be a precursor to browsers Observable() object and anything-as-a-stream management. Not sure how React is solving these problems but probably a good idea just to go through a few simple examples to see how they work.
The only reason - if you want to bet the future of your project on an untested framework, that seen no real world use and is still changing during its RC.
Or simply put. If they named "Angular 2" by its real name "Some other cool framework name" - you would not use it. (e.g. Polymer 2)
Or simply put. If they named "Angular 2" by its real name "Some other cool framework name" - you would not use it. (e.g. Polymer 2)
While I found ng1 useful, I'll never touch this one. I can see now how dependency injection can be both a blessing and also a curse in some contexts. I also can see how Typescript features can shape a codebase and ultimately make it look like Enterprise Java, instead of making it easy to use and to learn.
I also just don't like the over use of non standard features like decorators. There is a chance they don't make it to the spec, what then ?
I also just don't like the over use of non standard features like decorators. There is a chance they don't make it to the spec, what then ?
As is shown with the decorator transpiling in both typescript and babel, it doesn't really matter if it never makes it to the spec: you can still use it using a compiler. I use it in my own production software and it is a real blessing when trying to use a more OO approach in a JS world
> it doesn't really matter if it never makes it to the spec
I does matter as there is difference between introducing type support in a language and introducing features that completely are non standard. Now imagine TC39 introduces a decorator syntax that is not compatible with Typescript's implementation ( it happened in the past with previous Typescript module syntax and the language had to break compatibility )
Angular 2 is completely based on the use of decorators to inject almost anything. Sometimes the decorator definition itself is bigger than the class using it.
I does matter as there is difference between introducing type support in a language and introducing features that completely are non standard. Now imagine TC39 introduces a decorator syntax that is not compatible with Typescript's implementation ( it happened in the past with previous Typescript module syntax and the language had to break compatibility )
Angular 2 is completely based on the use of decorators to inject almost anything. Sometimes the decorator definition itself is bigger than the class using it.
> it happened in the past with previous Typescript module syntax and the language had to break compatibility
Hmm. I thought that they just deprecated the old syntax while maintaining backwards compatibility.
Hmm. I thought that they just deprecated the old syntax while maintaining backwards compatibility.
It matters if the person who wrote the babel plugin stops supporting it. This is the problem I have with the babel culture, I don't think people realize that they are really inventing their own language which is a mismash of various language features they like; some of which is part of a real language, some of which is not.
> I also can see how Typescript features can shape a codebase and ultimately make it look like Enterprise Java, instead of making it easy to use and to learn.
Meh, I don't see how this is a bad thing. We need some more software engineering in the javascript space instead of cowboy hacking.
Meh, I don't see how this is a bad thing. We need some more software engineering in the javascript space instead of cowboy hacking.
> We need some more software engineering in the javascript space instead of cowboy hacking
Are you saying that the ability to write entreprise java code is what separates "software engineers" from "cowboy hackers" ? That statement is arrogant.
My point is the use of Typescript doesn't produce idiomatic Javascript code, since it encourages writing front-end code a certain way. You might like it, fine, I'm personally not willing to deal with that kind of over engineering blessed in the Java world, I know what it leads to. If this approach was really successful everybody would be using JWT by now. Obviously they don't.
Are you saying that the ability to write entreprise java code is what separates "software engineers" from "cowboy hackers" ? That statement is arrogant.
My point is the use of Typescript doesn't produce idiomatic Javascript code, since it encourages writing front-end code a certain way. You might like it, fine, I'm personally not willing to deal with that kind of over engineering blessed in the Java world, I know what it leads to. If this approach was really successful everybody would be using JWT by now. Obviously they don't.
> Are you saying that the ability to write entreprise java code is what separates "software engineers" from "cowboy hackers" ?
I'm saying that software engineering doesn't need to be simple, it needs to be solid. I think type safety is one of those features that makes a language more solid.
I'm saying that software engineering doesn't need to be simple, it needs to be solid. I think type safety is one of those features that makes a language more solid.
Complexity for the sake of it doesn't make software engineering solid. JEE complexity doesn't come from the need to be solid but from Java's flaws. In my book it's the very definition of bad engineering.
Have you used TypeScript? I thought the very same things until I started using it. TS does a great job of maintaining the spirit and feel of JS. It's not a "C# for the web", it really is "JavaScript with types"
It is C# for the web, of which a small subset is great and can be used to make "JavaScript with types".
Or rather, TypeScript isn't bad, but the way it is documented might convince people to do bad things. It took forever to get "the good parts" of JavaScript in people's head, and that doc is really a step backward.
If you just use TypeScript's types and run away with that though, it's pretty good. If you start using classes all over, rely on private/protected/public like crazy to make complicated domain models, abuse decorators to hell, enums, etc... then it's C# for the web.
It doesn't have to be used that way, but those features made available and having a high focus in the official doc is causing a lot of issues when people coming from Java/C# hop in a TypeScript code base.
We don't use TS here, but when we hire people who come from TS companies, we have to tie them down for them not to start writing C#-like code, and remind them that it's structural typing, etc.
Or rather, TypeScript isn't bad, but the way it is documented might convince people to do bad things. It took forever to get "the good parts" of JavaScript in people's head, and that doc is really a step backward.
If you just use TypeScript's types and run away with that though, it's pretty good. If you start using classes all over, rely on private/protected/public like crazy to make complicated domain models, abuse decorators to hell, enums, etc... then it's C# for the web.
It doesn't have to be used that way, but those features made available and having a high focus in the official doc is causing a lot of issues when people coming from Java/C# hop in a TypeScript code base.
We don't use TS here, but when we hire people who come from TS companies, we have to tie them down for them not to start writing C#-like code, and remind them that it's structural typing, etc.
I have to disagree. For starters classes came from ES2015. They're an official, first class construct of JavaScript now, whether we like it or not. Decorators are also from ECMAScript. Whether people use TypeScript or not, a lot of what you're complaining about is coming regardless.
The visibility modifiers are optional, only checked at compile time, and quite frankly solve a problem that JS developers have been solving badly for a decade now. From "gentlemen's privates" (ie, if it starts with an underscore please don't touch it or rely on it!), to closures to CommonJS modules, all ridiculous contraptions essentially designed to give you some sense of privacy in the language.
TypeScript doesn't have enums. Instead it allows you to restrict a string to a finite set of values. Which basically boils down to JavaScript "enums" with a dash of static typing thrown in.
I have no doubt TypeScript tends to attract C# and Java developers. But that doesn't take away from the fact that TypeScript is a proper superset of JavaScript, it doesn't force you into a rigid class system at all (structural typing for the win), and really, truly is "JavaScript with types".
The visibility modifiers are optional, only checked at compile time, and quite frankly solve a problem that JS developers have been solving badly for a decade now. From "gentlemen's privates" (ie, if it starts with an underscore please don't touch it or rely on it!), to closures to CommonJS modules, all ridiculous contraptions essentially designed to give you some sense of privacy in the language.
TypeScript doesn't have enums. Instead it allows you to restrict a string to a finite set of values. Which basically boils down to JavaScript "enums" with a dash of static typing thrown in.
I have no doubt TypeScript tends to attract C# and Java developers. But that doesn't take away from the fact that TypeScript is a proper superset of JavaScript, it doesn't force you into a rigid class system at all (structural typing for the win), and really, truly is "JavaScript with types".
Decorators aren't in EcmaScript yet. And the ES standard changed since they were implemented in TS (I honestly don't know if TS changed to accomodate or if they're just mismatched now).
TS sure as hell has something called "enum", which is NOT the same as their string literal types (those are good).
I disagree about the privates: closures are perfectly good functional ways of handling them, and if you didn't want that, we have symbols now to do it for "real". And privates aren't terrible. Protected however are OOP bullshit.
Though my primary point isn't in how its features are implemented: it's how they're advertised. That, to me, is what makes TypeScript "a C# for the web". It's implementation isn't terrible, especially if you stick to the "good parts". However, the "good parts" they advertise/encourages are javascript "bad parts.
TS sure as hell has something called "enum", which is NOT the same as their string literal types (those are good).
I disagree about the privates: closures are perfectly good functional ways of handling them, and if you didn't want that, we have symbols now to do it for "real". And privates aren't terrible. Protected however are OOP bullshit.
Though my primary point isn't in how its features are implemented: it's how they're advertised. That, to me, is what makes TypeScript "a C# for the web". It's implementation isn't terrible, especially if you stick to the "good parts". However, the "good parts" they advertise/encourages are javascript "bad parts.
Ah you're right, I forgot about the numeric enums. I was thinking strictly string based.
I honestly think "protected" is not worth fussing over. Not to mention JS becomes more classically oriented every day. I predict ES2018 adds "protected" :)
Anyway I honestly don't have much opinion on how they are marketing TS. The language itself is well done and that's all I really care about.
I honestly think "protected" is not worth fussing over. Not to mention JS becomes more classically oriented every day. I predict ES2018 adds "protected" :)
Anyway I honestly don't have much opinion on how they are marketing TS. The language itself is well done and that's all I really care about.
Are you honestly comparing Typescript verbosity with Java type verbosity? It's an absolute joy to work with Typescript in an IDE from JetBrains.
Well there are 2 advantages to angular (1 or 2) over react:
1. It has effortless two way binding, which makes apps that allow mutating the same state from a lot of places easy and simple to make (though one could argue harder to maintain)
2. It uses a template rather then a precompiler (such as jsx) which has two advatages- since its html it makes cooperating with designers and the design process itself easier and it means you can use strings for modularity (for example saving a templatr in the database etc.)
1. It has effortless two way binding, which makes apps that allow mutating the same state from a lot of places easy and simple to make (though one could argue harder to maintain)
2. It uses a template rather then a precompiler (such as jsx) which has two advatages- since its html it makes cooperating with designers and the design process itself easier and it means you can use strings for modularity (for example saving a templatr in the database etc.)
3. You can just learn / hire for Angular 2. You don't have to learn / hire for React + insert 5 other pieces of the stack required to make a complete app.
I've been using ng2 for a few Ionic 2 Projects recently and its fantastic. Rxjs is an absolute must - it allows amazingly precise code to manage mutation. The way everything is a component is great.
I can write a frontend app in a couple of days using Ionic 2. I'm so productive.
Edit: Why the downvote?
Edit: Why the downvote?
Yes! ng2 + typescript is phenomenal, and makes ionic2 a pleasure to use. What you get for the amount of time you put in is much more satisfying than with ng1. Fun!
For what it's worth, Google's engineering director for Angular has said that Angular 1 was a framework -- "something you could just drop into a web page and get going". Angular 2 was supposed to be a "platform of capabilities."
"We're still doing the framework, but we're improving our ability to handle different languages. Our plan is to have versions that will work with many server-side technologies, from Java to Python... We would like to work to make Angular future-proof. As we have new releases for Angular, it would be nice if we could give just an upgrade script, so on every release, it would be stress-free."
http://thenewstack.io/google-preps-angular-2-final-release/
"We're still doing the framework, but we're improving our ability to handle different languages. Our plan is to have versions that will work with many server-side technologies, from Java to Python... We would like to work to make Angular future-proof. As we have new releases for Angular, it would be nice if we could give just an upgrade script, so on every release, it would be stress-free."
http://thenewstack.io/google-preps-angular-2-final-release/
I like the ambition there. Something as complex as angular will definitely require updates. Let's hope they actually walk the talk.
Can someone recommend me good resources to learn (start with) angular 2?
I am totally new, I am learning node after JS and after that, I would like to introduce myself to angular.
I have some experience on JSF but I suppose it is completely different.
I have some experience on JSF but I suppose it is completely different.
If you're willing to pay: https://www.ng-book.com/2/ is good.
Angular 2's own tutorial is a nice start: https://angular.io/docs/js/latest/tutorial/ .
Am I supposed to bite the bullet and just use/learn typescript?
"This chapter is not yet available in JavaScript. We recommend reading the TypeScript version."
"This chapter is not yet available in JavaScript. We recommend reading the TypeScript version."
Honestly? Yes. We support ES5 but strongly recommend using Typescript with Angular2. Do you use ES6? If so, you already know how to use Typescript.
[deleted]
I second that. I was able to go from the tutorial to building a couple of small apps on my own, painlessly.
Super nice IMO
Super nice IMO
When an article about Angular is posted here, It seems standard practice to ignore the article itself—in this case, a writeup of Angular 2 best practices. Instead it becomes a discussion on React vs Angular, Angular 1 vs 2, frameworks vs no frameworks, etc. I’m not sure how to fix this problem—and I see it as a problem because the article bears discussion. But even with this comment I’ve derailed the original poster’s intent. So: is there a similar forum where Angular-oriented articles are posted and the starting assumption is that Angular is, well, good?
Not directly related but I would appreciate any thoughts on which angular version one should go with, for a new development (fairly large enterprise project) at this point of time. How hard would it be to upgrade to version 2.0 if we start our early development on v1.5, assuming 2.0 is not ready for prime time (or is it?)
There's a way to bootstrap your angular 1 app with an upgrade module so that you can have both running at the same time. There are ways to upgrade/downgrade your services/components so that they can be used in either Angular 1 or 2. I know Angular2 is planning a release that breaks its forms API, so there may be more small breaks like that, so take that for what it's worth when deciding to use Angular 2 or Angular 1 (or both, once 2 stabilizes more for your enterprise app). It took me two hours to bootstrap my angular 1.5 app with the upgrade module, along with transpiling .ts files with my es6 JS. Be aware, though, that if you do use Typescript, your build system is going to change, and you're going to have to figure out how to use a module bundler (SystemJS or WebPack, probably).
It may get pretty confusing if you're not used to transpilation, too. For example, when you want to instrument your code for code coverage for your unit tests, you need to map that instrumented code and its results to your typescript files and not the es5 transpiled version of your code to see which lines are failing/not being run/whatever. There are good plugins, but there's definitely some effort involved.
People on my team are using Angular2 in their own projects and are claiming huge productivity gains. They love the relative simplicity and power.
It may get pretty confusing if you're not used to transpilation, too. For example, when you want to instrument your code for code coverage for your unit tests, you need to map that instrumented code and its results to your typescript files and not the es5 transpiled version of your code to see which lines are failing/not being run/whatever. There are good plugins, but there's definitely some effort involved.
People on my team are using Angular2 in their own projects and are claiming huge productivity gains. They love the relative simplicity and power.
It's going to take a massive amount of work to upgrade from 1.0 to 2.0. Don't do that to yourself. Just go with 2.0.
All depends on if you use any third party Angular 1 libraries. If you do, it can be trickier, as one will have to rewrite the functionality in Angular 2.
For example, my current company screwed itself by using a fork of UI Grid, and thus probably cannot upgrade the current app to Angular 2 easily.
For example, my current company screwed itself by using a fork of UI Grid, and thus probably cannot upgrade the current app to Angular 2 easily.
Best Practice to Level Up: Don't make a whole new framework that is in no way compatible with the prior framework and just label it the same expecting people to use it.
I'm still disappointed that Angular 2 is such a sharp departure from Angular 1 and certain aspects of Angular 2 development, e.g. the fact there is still multiple CLIs, the fact that "compiling to Dart" is still a thing, and the fact that it's still unreleased give me no confidence to build anything in Angular. I can't help but feel that with any library, less is more, and that Angular 2 is already trying to do way too much. IMO Angular 2 should be a Typescript-only library with one CLI and one way to manage your files (among other changes made in the name of simplicity).
All this being said, I hope I'm terribly terribly wrong, and Angular 2 becomes the super-simple-way-to-create-great-UIs that the authors intended that the whole community can follow along. This article however, made me ask myself if that will ever happen.