[brackenbury]

And what is it that you think is good in XAML? Two-way data binding? Angular and Ember tried that and are now moving away from it. XAML is poorly designed, especially those over-complicated data bindings. I prefer the jQuery way where the template just contains an id or class, then you set data from code, as opposed to the template trying to pull data. The template needs to be simple (since designers also have to edit it), and the intelligence should be in code.

[randomfool]

1) Type Converters to convert attributes from strings to real types

2) The options on Binding- one way, two way, etc

3) Element lifecycle events- HTML custom elements are a small step, but still missing so many

4) Extensible layout model.

5) Control Templates- shadow DOM is an attempt to do this, but is sub-par. Particularly in how styles and events are handled.

[aikah]

> I prefer the jQuery way where the template just contains an id or class

Are you saying you "got" what a project like angular that has more than 1000 contributors "didn't get"?

> The template needs to be simple (since designers also have to edit it), and the intelligence should be in code.

Designers shouldn't touch the code. Designers should stick with design. It's your role as a developer to do design integration. At best designers should only deal with CSS and HTML, they should never see a template tag nor be responsible for placing them inside html files.

[coldtea]

>Are you saying you "got" what a project like angular that has more than 1000 contributors "didn't get"?

Sorry but that's a BS argument if I ever saw one. It's basically an arguemtn from authority and/or popularity.

Something could have 100000 contributors and still be crap and they could still "not get" that it's crap.

JavaEE circa 2002-5 had all the enterprise world using it, tons of aftermarket companies, the best people at SUN and more. And yet, it was utter crap, and a few years later everybody admitted it and were ashamed to be associated with it.

Or take PHP. I'm not against it, but it has tons of contributors (tens of thousands if we count the whole core ecosystem) and it's widely considered a "fractal of bad design".

[brackenbury]

Regarding angular, please see this previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8651641 There appears to be lots of things the 1000 contributors didn't get. They are after all abandoning Angular 1 and working on Angular 2 which is a completely new framework which just happens to share the same name as the older framework.

I agree designers shouldn't touch code (i.e., javascript). But designers should be able to directly edit the visual aspects (i.e., templates). This was one of the goals of XAML.

[Bahamut]

This discussion about what contributors got/didn't get is completely off - Angular was conceived at a time when a lot of what we have today in standards and better practices weren't here. To a large degree, Angular popularized many of them in frontend development, or at the least highlighted a need for a more standardized solution.

Angular has a lot of strong & smart contributors. Angular also grew more organically, and broke a lot of new ground. That says nothing about what contributors got/did not get. To equate the two requires a false assumption.