You have ruined Javascript... Rob Ashton on AngularJS

[Edvard]

Even if he's wrong, this is hilarious.
Javascript is it's own worst enemy just further reminds me how I'm never, ever touching Javascript if I can damn well help it.

you have ruined javascript
...
What the actual !@#$%^&* is this? I read this as "in order to do a hello world, you must first create a hello world service to create the hello world factory to create the hello world service so you can print hello world on the screen."

http://codeofrob.com...ined-javascript.html

from

[wraith808]

From the comments:

Rob, I think you've confused "over-wrought enterprise 'solution' with layers of unnecessary complexity and abstraction" with "lackluster documentation written mostly by architects full of jargon that's confusing to newcomers". AngularJS surely isn't perfect, but to suggest jQuery was the zenith of where we're gone with front end is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

For instance, you say:

> What the actual fuck is this? I read this as "in order to do a hello world, you must first create a hello world service to create the hello world factory to create the hello world sercice so you can print hello world on the screen."

I feel that your negative feelings about this are due to a misreading and unwillingness to understand the principles Angular is built from, namely ease of testability, not from unneeded complexity introduced by the Angular devs for people who need "hand-holding", whatever that means. A "Hello World" in Angular would be something more like this: https://angularjs.org/#the-basics. No jargon, just note the two-way data binding. Hey, cool. Walk before you can run and so on.

> I'd write a plain old JS equivalent but trying to wrap my head around all of the indirection in the above example is making me want to crawl under a desk and bang my head on the floor until the brainmeats come out so I don't have to subject myself to this madness any further.

Instead of having such a visceral reaction, let's hear what you consider to be a better alternative. It's easy to criticize the work of others and not put yourself out there to potentially be criticized. If you can't be troubled to make an argument about why Angular is bad other than "I don't like it, meh, it reminds me of my enterprise days, oh by the way I'm not going to suggest anything better but I will vaguely allude to NPM modules as the golden age of JS" then don't expect us to take you seriously.

[Edvard]

Yeah, I saw that, which is why I said "Even if he's wrong...".  Though I do think it's rather disingenuous to trot out the "So suggest something better" argument.  In Rob's opinion, there HAS to be a better way, but AngularJS isn't it, and he's pointing out what seems to be circular reasoning encoded in the framework which appears completely illogical. 

Meh, I'm still giddy about learning Pascal, what do I know? 
I still think he's funny...

[Renegade]

That was hilarious!

[Tuxman]

Not that Javascript itself (with its implicitly wrong implicit data types) wasn't broken before.

[40hz]

Finally got around to reading that.

Bloody!

Here I thought things were about as ugly as you could get design and syntax-wise with pHp. Then along comes something "new" that makes even Ada look sleek and elegant by comparison. 

[ewemoa]

I'm currently using AngularJS in a project and I don't find the terminology particularly nice, but there is some very nice functionality (e.g. two-way data binding and user-definable HTML elements and/or attributes).  There are some helpful introductory resources available now -- don't know what it was like when this article was written.

Perhaps there will come a day when reading/writing JavaScript won't be a weird experience...definitely an odd beast.

I continue to find naming to be difficult.  An art perhaps?