[apinstein]

It's interesting that he has a visceral reaction to the "hackiness" of Angular's clever way to do runtime DI but no visceral reaction to the fact that the problem was created by a third-party program which was instructed to purposefully obfuscate the actual source code of his program before delivering it to the runtime... the JavaScript world is indeed a funny place.

That said, I am empathetic to his argument. But as a very happy Angular user, the benefits that are gained by having a runtime DI layer that works such that it can be built into the entire platform so far outweigh the one-time tooling change that it doesn't bother me at all.

The rest is a slippery-slope argument that I don't think is fair. If you trust Angular as a project, then you have to trust to some extent that they'll make sane decisions. Since this particular clever hack is the only one that won't get "better" over time as runtimes improve, I think that they deserve the trust so far.

[AdrianRossouw]

DI is fine, i was just concerned that they have something that breaks as the first recommended way to do something. Much less that they have it at all.

Minification pretty much counts as 'normal use' these days, as much as we all have a distaste for it, we really can't change it.

You should watch the video on my post and tell me you are still comfortable with it doing that at runtime.

And the slippery slope thing? I spent 10 years of my life building open source projects with thousands of contributors and untold thousands of users. That's experience talking there. My point was that you can't deny the sufficiently promising excuse to abuse it further, without admitting that it is flawed to begin with.

My suggestion was that now that the ngmin exists, make that the only way to do it and remove all the crazy stuff out of the main execution.

I also said that clever hack is the only one that could never get better. There's no standards path for it.

They have been shown to deserve the trust. they are removing the hackiness from 2.0.

[apinstein]

Great ideas! Sounds like we generally agree. I read the whole post but didn't watch the video or read all of the 2.0 stuff... though I am aware how their DI hack works.

That said, the title of your post makes it sound like you think they're heading off a cliff, but your response to me sounds like the opposite... I was just responding to the tone set by the article.

I'll also agree that it is frustrating early in the AngularJS experience to hit that minification bug. But it's easy to get over also.

[AdrianRossouw]

Yeah. I was mostly concerned about the fact that nobody was pointing this out.

If you read the [1] previous post you will see that I am remarkably positive about it. My concern was that the answer to working around the DI hack was always "dont do that".

Even ngmin is just a really elaborate way to 'dont do that'. With it's own issue queue and grunt plugin and almost 22000 hits on google.

From working on open source for a long time, I know that existing code also sets precedent. And i couldn't think of any way that you could keep using that code for the next 5-10 years without somebody thinking of something else 'clever' to do with it.

They devs realized that though, without me. which is great news. You are in awesome hands imo.

[1] http://daemon.co.za/2014/03/why-wrong-to-be-afraid-angular