>You definitely aren’t restricted to lazy loading when using RouterModule.forChild, idk where you got that, just define a module, add forChild with your routes, and import it into another module. Im doing this all over our codebase.
Genuinely, I have not been able to figure out what it actually does from the documentation. Either it isn't there or I have been holding it wrong.
Because, loadChildren actually would import the routes from a child module as children of an existing route. But what you're saying, it sounds like the child routes would get placed at the root of the tree. I don't want that though, that doesn't allow me to do the decoupling I wanted to do. I don't fully understand why I can't just specify a module for children when loadChildren will happily take one asynchronously.
>I can understand you’re opinions about the module system, but I disagree. For a small to medium size app it can seem like annoying boilerplate that gets in the way. If you’re working on a large app across multiple teams then it’s very helpful. You have a single entry point for all relevant code. You can define the api for that module so other teams don’t misuse what you have built. It can get frustrating when you have a single component that you want to share and you need to wrap it in a module, that feels very unnecessary, but I know the angular team is working on that.
I work on only relatively large teams and I still don't get it. If I didn't want someone to be able to use part of my API, I would just not export it. Further, systems like Bazel already provide package visibility, which is a lot more powerful in terms of limiting the spread of an API imo. I know in Angular sometimes things have to be exported because of the AOT compiler, but that's not a great justification.
>I actually really like that my components are in the dom, I can see clearly where it is, not which div with which class or Id it is. It makes inspecting the tree very easy.
I would've thought it would make this easier, but due to the amount of power you have in the selector for components and the way directives work, I've still definitely found myself confused at times. At the end of the day, I didn't really have a complaint with the way React handled it, aside from the inconvenience of needing a separate debug tool to see the component tree.
>RxJS can be difficult and hard to learn, which doesn’t help that the docs are meh and you can never find exactly where to go.
To be honest with you, I found the RxJS docs to be OK. It is a bit hard to search them, but most of the information I actually needed was available if I did. I personally had more trouble finding answers with Angular than RxJS.
>Juniors really need someone to help them not leak subscriptions.
I don't like the way you've worded this because it heavily implies that it's mostly only an issue for junior developers. However, I've seen some very tricky takeUntil setups that are surprisingly nuanced. If your async chains are simple it's easy to define the lifetime, it's not so easy when your chains lifetime may be a subset of your components or services lifetime.
Interestingly, if we had things like higher order components, we could turn the problem into a component lifecycle problem, which is what React likes to do. I miss being able to encapsulate problems like that.
>Though if you follow Angulars promoted idea of using the async pipe, then that will automatically clean up your subscriptions.
I use the async pipe where possible because it does offer a reprieve from manually managing things like lifespan. Sadly, there are a lot of times where using the async pipe is not super nice. Let's say a value that was synchronous has become an observable, now if I was using other pipes or using the dot accessor suddenly it becomes more complicated. Generally I just give up at that point.
>Again, for small components/apps it feels way overkill, but it feels oh so nice when your trying some complex async stuff and can handle it and pass it along so easily.
With the caveat that it actually does not map all complex async problems elegantly.
It is super nice for some common cases like implementing type-ahead, and I generally use RxJS even outside of Angular nowadays because of the fact that it's just easier to express complex asynchronous behavior with it, but there have definitely been moments when I realized my somewhat complicated RxJS code could be replaced with relatively simple use of async/await and a for loop :|
I have a very large number of Angular gripes other than what I listed, so please don't take it to be exhaustive. I just wanted to illustrate in great detail the ways I did not like Angular because if I don't do that many people will assume it's because I didn't give it a fair shake.
Genuinely, I have not been able to figure out what it actually does from the documentation. Either it isn't there or I have been holding it wrong.
Because, loadChildren actually would import the routes from a child module as children of an existing route. But what you're saying, it sounds like the child routes would get placed at the root of the tree. I don't want that though, that doesn't allow me to do the decoupling I wanted to do. I don't fully understand why I can't just specify a module for children when loadChildren will happily take one asynchronously.
>I can understand you’re opinions about the module system, but I disagree. For a small to medium size app it can seem like annoying boilerplate that gets in the way. If you’re working on a large app across multiple teams then it’s very helpful. You have a single entry point for all relevant code. You can define the api for that module so other teams don’t misuse what you have built. It can get frustrating when you have a single component that you want to share and you need to wrap it in a module, that feels very unnecessary, but I know the angular team is working on that.
I work on only relatively large teams and I still don't get it. If I didn't want someone to be able to use part of my API, I would just not export it. Further, systems like Bazel already provide package visibility, which is a lot more powerful in terms of limiting the spread of an API imo. I know in Angular sometimes things have to be exported because of the AOT compiler, but that's not a great justification.
>I actually really like that my components are in the dom, I can see clearly where it is, not which div with which class or Id it is. It makes inspecting the tree very easy.
I would've thought it would make this easier, but due to the amount of power you have in the selector for components and the way directives work, I've still definitely found myself confused at times. At the end of the day, I didn't really have a complaint with the way React handled it, aside from the inconvenience of needing a separate debug tool to see the component tree.
>RxJS can be difficult and hard to learn, which doesn’t help that the docs are meh and you can never find exactly where to go.
To be honest with you, I found the RxJS docs to be OK. It is a bit hard to search them, but most of the information I actually needed was available if I did. I personally had more trouble finding answers with Angular than RxJS.
>Juniors really need someone to help them not leak subscriptions.
I don't like the way you've worded this because it heavily implies that it's mostly only an issue for junior developers. However, I've seen some very tricky takeUntil setups that are surprisingly nuanced. If your async chains are simple it's easy to define the lifetime, it's not so easy when your chains lifetime may be a subset of your components or services lifetime.
Interestingly, if we had things like higher order components, we could turn the problem into a component lifecycle problem, which is what React likes to do. I miss being able to encapsulate problems like that.
>Though if you follow Angulars promoted idea of using the async pipe, then that will automatically clean up your subscriptions.
I use the async pipe where possible because it does offer a reprieve from manually managing things like lifespan. Sadly, there are a lot of times where using the async pipe is not super nice. Let's say a value that was synchronous has become an observable, now if I was using other pipes or using the dot accessor suddenly it becomes more complicated. Generally I just give up at that point.
>Again, for small components/apps it feels way overkill, but it feels oh so nice when your trying some complex async stuff and can handle it and pass it along so easily.
With the caveat that it actually does not map all complex async problems elegantly.
It is super nice for some common cases like implementing type-ahead, and I generally use RxJS even outside of Angular nowadays because of the fact that it's just easier to express complex asynchronous behavior with it, but there have definitely been moments when I realized my somewhat complicated RxJS code could be replaced with relatively simple use of async/await and a for loop :|
I have a very large number of Angular gripes other than what I listed, so please don't take it to be exhaustive. I just wanted to illustrate in great detail the ways I did not like Angular because if I don't do that many people will assume it's because I didn't give it a fair shake.