This article is ranting about single-page applications written with javascript frameworks. The word "Angular" was thrown as click-bait because it's the latest whipping-boy. From what I read there isn't a single valid complaint that's specific to Angular.
I think it is inaccurate to accuse the author of using Angular as "clickbait". To me that term is reserved for titles which don't match the content. Whether you feel every argument could also apply to "every" js framework, you cannot argue that this article was specifically about Angular. It included Angular code, anecdotal references to real Angular projects, and various quotes from sources all about Angular.
The one complaint the author made about the DOM parsing definitely doesn't apply to React, though not sure how Ember and Backbone handle that sort of thing.
He could have replaced the Angular code with Ember code and levied the exact same complaints. Re-read the article and try to figure out which complaints aren't also valid for other large JS frameworks. It's clear he's a libraries > frameworks guy, which is a perfectly valid viewpoint to have, but it's cowardly to frame such a debate as a thoughtful criticism of a specific framework because it won't draw rebuttals from nearly as many people who might otherwise feel the need to chime in.
He specifically mentions performance many times but has no statistics to back this up. I have created a web app with Angular and it runs fine on old Android phones and iPhones. We don't see any performance problems. Of course YMMV but he/she makes it should like the performance is a really big problem that everyone will get affected by which I thinks is wrong, most apps won't have any major performance problems.
I agree that it's a rant, and a not particularly focused rant at that, but it has plenty of call outs to Angular code, documentation, and commentary examples, so it's hard for me to agree that it only name drops Angular as clickbait.
If you look closer at them you'll notice most of those rants are "feels wrong" type rants that could be levied at almost any framework the author doesn't particularly like. The only solid complaint he has is a performance test which, again, both Angular and Ember perform poorly on, and in the same breath he admits these issues are easily mitigated but laments that they aren't mitigated by default. He uses it as an opportunity to praise Backbone which further fits his "large frameworks are bad" premise which is what the article should have been titled. But hey, based on how quickly this article shot to the top of Hacker News it appears his more link-baity title was effective.
Not at all, the author praises Backbone. The learning curve, busted syntax, and performance issues unfortunately ARE specific to Angular, that's the entire point of the article.
Backbone is as lightweight as a framework can get - to the point where one might call it a library. It's common for people who are anti-framework to embrace smaller frameworks like React and Backbone.
> The learning curve, busted syntax, and performance issues unfortunately ARE specific to Angular, that's the entire point of the article.
But they're really not. Ember has the same learning curve and performance issues that Angular has, and "busted syntax" is completely subjective.
