[yboris]

For reference, Miško Hevery, the author of this post, is the creator of Angular.

At the end of the article, there's his solution: https://qwik.builder.io/guide/overview

> Qwik is a new kind of web framework that can deliver instant loading web applications at any size or complexity. Your sites and apps can boot with less than 1kb of JS

[wwweston]

> is the creator of Angular.

Welp, that's reason enough for me to ignore him entirely. Especially on the topic of "overhead."

Angular was an inexcusable atrocity.

[hatenberg]

Most developers would scoff at their own code written a decade ago, because we learn constantly, it's what makes this profession great.

So unless you're one of those people who just are consistently great, maybe the secret identity of Fabrice Bellard, you may want to consider this before making immature statements like this.

Besides, inexcusable atrocities being picked up by large parts of the industry (hi javascript), are pretty common and one could bet that they afford much more learning and real world value than perfect academic solutions never used by anyone

[eyelidlessness]

I was surprised when I saw his name attached to this project too. But goodness, having followed it for some time, are you ever wrong. If anything Qwik has reminded me professionally that people really can learn from their experiences and surprise you. Angular was in fact terrible. Qwik is not Angular or like it in any way.

[fleddr]

That's a terrible mindset no matter how much you hate Angular.

[mst]

The original Angular was, for its time, absolutely fantastic.

The state of the art has absolutely moved on but provided you were willing to understand its model (just like these days you need to understand React's model) it provided a power to performance ratio that nothing else in its class was capable of at the time.

[wwweston]

I was on a team that sunk 9 months into its model for a major project and what I saw bears no resemblance to what you're describing.

It's a framework that hated the idioms of its host language, as if the problem with front-end development was that it didn't have the ceremony of Java and the attendant abstractions/"patterns" of a static manifestly typed language. The conceptual overhead alone was ridiculous (as famously described here: http://codeofrob.com/entries/you-have-ruined-javascript.html ), and the payoff in terms of performance was negative on mobile no matter what we did. The fact that I had to know what the digest cycle was is a testament to the leaky nature of the abstractions. The tooling, wow, as far as I could tell batarang was actively broken for a good chunk of 2014 and 2015 and nobody had better suggestions.

I've used a lot of libraries/frameworks/languages with their own baggage but I've never had an experience where the differential between what I was hearing and the actual experience was that large, to the point where it's one of the first things I think of when it comes to the hazards of social proof.

If I wanted something that heavy again circa 2014, I'd tell myself to just use Ember. Hell, I'd rather use jQuery than Angular.

[scotty79]

No. It was not. It was jumbled mess of ad-hoc solutions. Many of the concepts that were core stuff of angular are completely forgotten now. It discovered nothing of value. I worked in a project that used it for almost a year. And none of what I learned about AngularJS was useful since then. Except from general notion of "avoid angular" and "treat frameworks that cram stuff into html with suspicion".

[culi]

Whatever actual criticisms you have of Angular, do you really think there's anyone around who would be even more painfully aware of those criticisms than him?

[hu3]

Experience is invaluable.

He probably knows much more than those who didn't create a major front-end tool.