A little weird trying to make hay by noting that Angular calls itself "a toolset for building a framework" ... which Angular (almost) does say ... angular.github.io/angularjs.org/ ... but on a page that boldly (too boldly) states in its title: "AngularJS - Super Heroic JavaScript MVC Framework". Come on, fellas, ... they're both frameworks ... and that's no crime
The other side of the coin that is ignored here is giving developers flexibility to create patterns or better ways that the authors of the frameworks may not have necessarily figured out themselves. Conventions will limit that exploration. Their definition of Angular is curious too. Do a google search, Angular is a "Superheroic JavaScript MVW *Framework*", I think they are proud to be framework guys too.
Check under "Extensibility" on the AngularJS home page. "AngularJS is a toolset for building the framework most suited to your application development."
They've always likened the framework's convention-over-configuration nature to Rails', and acknowledged this since day one. I've been using Ember for 2 years now, and since components were introduced I've not once had a problem with its flexibility. I agree with your assessment of the Angular definition, though. I think the argument stems mainly from Yehuda's point that Angular's low-level primitives are exposed everywhere, whereas Ember chooses to abstract that for you unless you want to look under the hood.
Not trying to be snarky, but count how many times these guys start a sentence with the word "So". I'm referring to the sentences where removing the word "so" does not alter the meaning of the sentence whatsoever--where "so" is totally unnecessary. "So" has become the new "Ummm/Uhhhh" of American English.
I grew quite tired of the constant chatter-bashing of AngularJS and how people are doing different things the wrong way. In the end, this felt like a trolling followed by a sales pitch of yet again another JavaScript framework/library/toolset.
Be careful when you start hearing buzz words like "best practices" and "conventions" - especially from rails like tools - and a disproportionate amount of "should" in the verbiage.
Not a single mention of performance, scalability or testability. Like Angular, Ember evolves in a closed system, defined by Ember and your project is closed to new technologies developed outside of this closed system. Most of the points made were self serving and were not fundamental to enterprise development. Seems the JQuery-esque notion of "use this framework if you're lazy or a newb" dies hard.
...That's because performance, scalability, and testability don't have any bearing on the library/framework differences they're illustrating. This isn't a comprehensive overview of framework/library pros and cons. Also, "Ember" is not a corporate entity, and development doesn't take place in a closed system. You pretty clearly sound like someone who's never used it.
Adam Robertson Exactly my point. This presentation positioned Ember as a "Me too" framework. Like Angular, React, Bootstrap, Knockout, etc, Ember is the guy in the crowd frantically waiving his hand saying: "Me too! Me too! I do all that too! pick me! pick me!" They need to focus on the advantages to using Ember as it pertains to enterprise development over and above of the crowds of frameworks out there. For most professionals, it boils down to performance, scalability and testability. If there are no advantages, the framework is redundant and at the mercy of how many fanbois it can attract. This presentation failed at that and was a missed opportunity by the Ember team.
Justin Wilaby The talk is "Framework vs Library", not "Why ember is better for performance, scalability, and testability in Enterprise solutions". If you want to do that research on your own, go right ahead, but seeing a video about a particular topic and being disappointed that its content doesn't match your expectations is ludicrous.
Adam Robertson I must have missed something then because at 1:03 Tom introduces the topic as: "A Defense of Frameworks". IMO to properly defend a framework, you absolutely should include performance, scalability and testabiltiy. Isn't that the point of a framework? Bottom line: This talk had nothing of real value in it and was a missed opportunity to tout the advantages of using Ember over the millions of other frameworks that do almost exactly the same thing.
Many wise words in this video. My vote goes to Ember.js as the only "real" framework out there.
This video is fantastic. Love their definition of framework vs flexible.
"A framework nurtures a feedback loop that helps features iterate as shared understanding develops"
Excellent talk. Yehuda Katz and Tom Dale did a great job at tackling the issues between what a framework and library is.
Did Yehuda loose a few pounds ?
WOW. Yehuda is a different man now!
A little weird trying to make hay by noting that Angular calls itself "a toolset for building a framework" ... which Angular (almost) does say ... angular.github.io/angularjs.org/ ... but on a page that boldly (too boldly) states in its title: "AngularJS - Super Heroic JavaScript MVC Framework". Come on, fellas, ... they're both frameworks ... and that's no crime
If you get the chance, help me by trying to promote togetherness amongst framework communities. We have much to share with each other.
Why so much hate towards angularjs? One word: Google. Enough said
The other side of the coin that is ignored here is giving developers flexibility to create patterns or better ways that the authors of the frameworks may not have necessarily figured out themselves. Conventions will limit that exploration.
Their definition of Angular is curious too. Do a google search, Angular is a "Superheroic JavaScript MVW *Framework*", I think they are proud to be framework guys too.
Check under "Extensibility" on the AngularJS home page. "AngularJS is a toolset for building the framework most suited to your application development."
They've always likened the framework's convention-over-configuration nature to Rails', and acknowledged this since day one. I've been using Ember for 2 years now, and since components were introduced I've not once had a problem with its flexibility.
I agree with your assessment of the Angular definition, though. I think the argument stems mainly from Yehuda's point that Angular's low-level primitives are exposed everywhere, whereas Ember chooses to abstract that for you unless you want to look under the hood.
"Tome" Dale ^_^
Not trying to be snarky, but count how many times these guys start a sentence with the word "So". I'm referring to the sentences where removing the word "so" does not alter the meaning of the sentence whatsoever--where "so" is totally unnecessary. "So" has become the new "Ummm/Uhhhh" of American English.
I grew quite tired of the constant chatter-bashing of AngularJS and how people are doing different things the wrong way. In the end, this felt like a trolling followed by a sales pitch of yet again another JavaScript framework/library/toolset.
Be careful when you start hearing buzz words like "best practices" and "conventions" - especially from rails like tools - and a disproportionate amount of "should" in the verbiage.
Not a single mention of performance, scalability or testability. Like Angular, Ember evolves in a closed system, defined by Ember and your project is closed to new technologies developed outside of this closed system. Most of the points made were self serving and were not fundamental to enterprise development. Seems the JQuery-esque notion of "use this framework if you're lazy or a newb" dies hard.
...That's because performance, scalability, and testability don't have any bearing on the library/framework differences they're illustrating. This isn't a comprehensive overview of framework/library pros and cons. Also, "Ember" is not a corporate entity, and development doesn't take place in a closed system. You pretty clearly sound like someone who's never used it.
Adam Robertson Exactly my point. This presentation positioned Ember as a "Me too" framework. Like Angular, React, Bootstrap, Knockout, etc, Ember is the guy in the crowd frantically waiving his hand saying: "Me too! Me too! I do all that too! pick me! pick me!" They need to focus on the advantages to using Ember as it pertains to enterprise development over and above of the crowds of frameworks out there. For most professionals, it boils down to performance, scalability and testability. If there are no advantages, the framework is redundant and at the mercy of how many fanbois it can attract. This presentation failed at that and was a missed opportunity by the Ember team.
Hey Justin, What framework have you been using? Hope you've been well!
Justin Wilaby The talk is "Framework vs Library", not "Why ember is better for performance, scalability, and testability in Enterprise solutions". If you want to do that research on your own, go right ahead, but seeing a video about a particular topic and being disappointed that its content doesn't match your expectations is ludicrous.
Adam Robertson I must have missed something then because at 1:03 Tom introduces the topic as: "A Defense of Frameworks". IMO to properly defend a framework, you absolutely should include performance, scalability and testabiltiy. Isn't that the point of a framework? Bottom line: This talk had nothing of real value in it and was a missed opportunity to tout the advantages of using Ember over the millions of other frameworks that do almost exactly the same thing.