|
|
|
|
|
by acjohnson55
4471 days ago
|
|
I disagree with you that the hacky DI scheme is something that should be ignored. It's brittle and really has no place in the core of a library like this. It's not an end of the world thing, but it's definitely worth addressing. I totally agree with you that Angular is overly complex. I feel like they somehow either overshot or undershot the correct layer of abstraction, and I'm not sure how. It can produce really elegant projects for sure, but when you need to actually understand what's going on...prepare to navigate a whole new world of linkers, compilers, injectors, scopes, directive options. The spiral just keeps on going. I don't get the defense of global variables. I feel like it's been proven time and time again that the trouble of encapsulating code and explicitly coupling parts of an app through clear interfaces pays dividends. I think class and module patterns have been a major turning point in the maturation of Javascript. I'm hoping that when we finally get native opinions of these concepts in ES6, we won't need so many reinventions of the same thing. |
|
I am not trying to argue against proper encapsulation and coupling/decoupling. Those things are great. Classes and modules and great. Not sure how you see me as attacking those things.
Say I am working on a web application and I want to use AJAX. I should not have to keep saying in every place that I want to use it "oh by the way I am using AJAX".
If you agree with this then exactly what sort of encapsulation and coupling would you recommend for the overall application to achieve not having to keep saying that it wants to use AJAX?