[snicker]

the point of a framework is speedy development. less lines of code for results. the tradeoff is often bloat, which one should (ideally) refactor out later. Angular can get overwhelmingly slow if you're not careful with your code, but gosh dang, you sure can whip an app up pretty fast

[Bahamut]

For most apps, I've found that slowness is not a problem with Angular. You can do some nasty things though if you're not careful though, definitely agree with that. If you have flaws elsewhere in your codebase, including the backend, it may be possible that in practice, the effects may trickle down to your frontend code with Angular - it has happened in an app I've worked on with a couple of other developers, in which flaws with the api performance caused us to implement some subpar workarounds that triggered many $digests & forced us to spend a day or two on just optimization.

Angular can be quite fast compared to jQuery in an app of substance. It is not constantly reading/writing to the DOM in most cases, which saves a lot on the performance front. It is also a smaller library than jQuery, and you're not naively applying global or complicated selectors. Plugins rewritten to be pure javascript + Angular also can have a much smaller footprint & be more powerful to boot, such as the Angular UI Bootstrap project (5 KB minified & gzipped as opposed to 15-35 KB? I forget Bootstrap's js size) & contains all of the power of Angular to modify your functionality with them & more.

[Zelphyr]

> bloat, which one should (ideally) refactor out later

How do you refactor out bloat from a framework without throwing away the framework?

This is my whole point about not using frameworks. They're a siren that WILL eat you in the end.