Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to add some JS functionality to our site. (wishlist, inquiry, ect) I think it would be nice for the UX that it is going to be build with some JS code
Do i need a JSframework like Angular, ember ect ? Or are JSframeworks only make sense for SPA like editing/backend tools?
That decision is up to you. AngularJS is awesome, but it's not really meant to be used for little pieces of a project. For my taste, I'd write everything with AngularJS. You probably want to check out Backbone if you want to only use it here and there.
From Backbonejs.org:
Philosophically, Backbone is an attempt to discover the minimal set of
data-structuring (models and collections) and user interface (views
and URLs) primitives that are generally useful when building web
applications with JavaScript. In an ecosystem where overarching,
decides-everything-for-you frameworks are commonplace, and many
libraries require your site to be reorganized to suit their look,
feel, and default behavior — Backbone should continue to be a tool
that gives you the freedom to design the full experience of your web
application.
Angular is more like the "overarching, decides-everything-for-you frameworks" it mentions.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I know that for a simple static website, using plain HTML.. is the easiest and quickest way. But, what are some use cases between the two options? Is using a framework mostly the best solution?
You can basically see frameworks as pre-written structures for your App.
In other words, frameworks are meant to help you building applications quicker by addressing common development problems.
So, going back to your question, there are not really times where you would prefer vanilla javascript over frontend frameworks due to the incapacity of scaling well, which could result in inscrutable and unmaintainable spaghetti code.
Other bit you would want to consider about frameworks, is their high performance obtained thanks to their virtual DOM (abstract map of the real DOM), which helps handling events to update parts of the App without the need of re-rendering it.
On the other hand, I would suggest to go with a static website using pure HTML and Vanilla JS, only if learning / instructing someone, or if building something really really simple (but rest assure 99% of your commercial websites may suit better under a framework rather than without).
If you want to read more about it, I would suggest the following articles:
https://stackoverflow.blog/2020/02/03/is-it-time-for-a-front-end-framework/
https://gomakethings.com/why-do-people-choose-frameworks-over-vanilla-js/
https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/do-we-still-need-javascript-frameworks-42576735949b/
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm using angularjs for my application, which is so secure (similar like banking application),i have another option of using freemarker or velocity ..
whether it is best to go with angularjs or we can use freemarker or velocity. if so could you please explain. the backend service is spring boot .
Freemarker is just a templating engine, it's not a full front-end framework with 2 way data binding like angularjs is. Also, with angular it's very easy to build Single Page Applications which have a very smooth user experience compared to traditional applications where you must reload the page every time the user navigates to another page. If you already know angular, it's the better choice. If you don't know angular, then freemarker is much faster to learn but not quite as powerful/good. Though I do quite like freemarker as a templating engine.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I was playing with ReactJS for a bit, and given a bit of prior exposure to AngularJS, and the way things are done in the latter, I had a hard time to get used to the syntax and the 'flow' of React.
So I had the above-mentioned question, plus: are there scenarios when ReactJS should be preferred to AngularJS?
Could anyone point out what can be done [easier/better/more efficiently] in React rather than in Angular, and other way around.
It's actually the opposite. Angular has a lot of features, apis, configuration options, etc. React tries to be much simpler and let you choose how your application is structured. Controllers, directives, and templates are reduced to just components. Services are just plain JavaScript, there's nothing React specific about it. Things like $q and $timeout don't exist because there's no digress (use anything you like for those).
You use React in your application, vs making your application in angular.
ReactJS uses the concept of virtual DOM which speeds up the rendering of the app.
Watch Pete Hunt's excellent video on Virtual Dom here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DX3vJiqxm4
The syntax might be very unconventional but the same thing can be said about Angular's concept of Directives, services, controllers, etc. It just takes time to get used to, but once you feel comfortable, you'll find that thinking in ReactJS really makes sense.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
After reading the tutorials for both technologies AngularJS makes the HTML code much more easy to read.
My only concern is that AngularJS does not provide a Desktop Environment in terms of controls like ExtJS isn't that right?
Or is it these days ExtJS a technology becoming deprecated?
What exactly do you want to ask with the question?
The main difference between AngularJS and ExtJS in my opinion is, that AngularJS focuses mainly on being a MVC Framework, which doesn't offer any extended library-style functionality to design fancy user interfaces. ExtJS goes a step further, it also is a MVC framework at the core, but offers more than that lots of functionality, for example designing of a user interface (probably what you mean by "Desktop Environment" lookalike). Visit the sencha homepage to get a full overview of the built in functionality. Using ExtJS to build webapp, there shouldn't be much of a need to add any other libraries.
To answer your second question: I don't think that ExtJS becomes deprecated, it has an active development and this year version 5 of the framework was launched.
The question "Should I use AngularJS or ExtJS" depends on the style of the frameworks, whatever you prefer and on your requirements. There are lots of articles which you may view, they compare the two frameworks in a detailed way: http://www.techferry.com/articles/ExtJS-vs-AngularJS.html
If you want to create an application with an user interface that looks like a Desktop Environment, you could either user ExtJS or AngularJS + a library, which provides functionality to create such an user interface.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Since Backbone's Router only work with "#", it means that it should be all in the same page. Should a BB application be only in one page and have only 1 Router?
One of the many nice things about Backbone is that it is very unopinionated about how you work with it. For example, if you just want to use views, then you can do that, and if you want to just use models, you can do that as well.
A Backbone application can be a single-page application, and it certainly provides a lot of functionality to make that easier if that is your goal, but it doesn't have to be. There is absolutely nothing wrong with explicitly calling your views by hand instead of using a router.
To answer the second part of your question... No, you can have as many routers as you like. However, I'd say a large portion of Backbone apps out there make do with just one. I am working on a Backbone app that has over a hundred different views, and I've never run into an issue where I'd have to introduce a secondary router.
Finally, a bit of a correction on your end; The Router object actually doesn't enforce the "#" anymore as long as your browser has pushState functionality. Older browsers (mainly IE) will fallback to the hashtag approach if necessary.
Hope this helps!