This is basically a +1 reply but I feel strongly about this point and wish to add my own rant.
This persistent idea that one should compile templates on the server is so mindbogglingly inefficient - compared to delegating to clients whose computing power is idling 99% of the time. Not to mention separation of UI from the core functionality and other benefits.
JS in browsers is incredibly fast nowadays. I can't remember the last time I ran into performance issues. Angular my not be the most efficient but it's a stepping stone in the direction of client-side apps + RESTful APIs which I think will be the rule rather than exception in the future.
Lots of features are in the pipeline which will make client-side apps even faster and more elegant (shadow DOM, Object.observer).
> This persistent idea that one should compile templates on the server is so mindbogglingly inefficient - compared to delegating to clients whose computing power is idling 99% of the time.
s/idling/conserving battery life/
much of the original article's criticism was aimed at angular apps on mobile devices.
Hi. So you're responsible for the increased battery usage on my mobile device. Please stop. Also, can you please test your code on a device that came out _last_ year? You know, so that you can make sure it's not sluggish and frustrating to use.
This persistent idea that one should compile templates on the server is so mindbogglingly inefficient - compared to delegating to clients whose computing power is idling 99% of the time. Not to mention separation of UI from the core functionality and other benefits.
JS in browsers is incredibly fast nowadays. I can't remember the last time I ran into performance issues. Angular my not be the most efficient but it's a stepping stone in the direction of client-side apps + RESTful APIs which I think will be the rule rather than exception in the future.
Lots of features are in the pipeline which will make client-side apps even faster and more elegant (shadow DOM, Object.observer).