[sjamaan]

If they had chosen a JS framework as part of the batteries, that framework probably would've been deprecated by now. For instance, who still builds websites with Angular or Backbone/Marionette anymore?

See also Rails, which did choose a battery quite early on: prototype.js. Well, that was a wrong decision, so they changed it to jQuery (which is now also deprecated; no idea what it supports nowadays) and also dropped their RJS templating language. Lots of breakage and churn on every major release for us poor sods who made use of such features.

[whstl]

More recently in Rails: Sprockets, then Webpack, then Vite.

Migrating a small website from one to the other is trivial.

Migrating a large enough website was for my team a multi-month affair involving hours-long debugging sessions, opening tickets in multiple Github projects and contributing to the projects.

Decoupling different software components is a good thing.

[EmilStenstrom]

That's why I suggested following the Phoenix LiveView route. It's a very thin and fast JS-layer that defers processing to the backend. Avoids framework churn.

[pjerem]

> Angular

A LOT of companies ?

[mst]

I suspect they mean original Angular (i.e. AngularJS) rather than the reboot just called Angular.

Certainly AngularJS was more contemporary with Backbone and was actually both relatively pleasant to use in its era and long outpaced now.

[jeremycarter]

Oh. I don't know. Just half of the biggest sites in the world from Google...

[manojlds]

Tell me you know nothing about OG Angular without telling me.

[replygirl]

It was called AngularJS--when someone says "Angular" most people will think of the framework called Angular

[EmilStenstrom]

The status quo for a Django site right now is that everyone that uses it needs to pick a framework themselves. That includes evaluating the "state of js frameworks" and knowing about all the tradeoffs. That's a lot of mental load for a web framework that claims "batteries included".