Uh, I'm gonna challenge you to give a source on that. Your comment sounds extremely biased towards React and dismissive towards Angular. None of those are dying out, I wouldn't we even say they compete directly.
I've worked on Angular stuff for years because my employer won't let us switch. Angular uses too much abstraction.
Angular does crazy things to the templates, to the point that trying to build your own UI widgets is a recipe for pain.
Template meta-language is stupid. It's just similar enough to JS that you mess up the syntax all the time and never really stop. Since it's not just JS like JSX there's not good linting support either.
Related, stupid "pet features" and hydra syndrome. Like Pipes. Why does Angular use these weird pointless things when you can do the same thing with JS built-ins? Just so they didn't have to copy JSX? We may never know. And why are there 2 form implementations that both feel half baked? Why is it so bad to instantiate components for testing? Why does it mangle the code to support dependency injection when decorators and DI support don't even actually exist in JS even in ES2018? Why is Polyfills.js such a minefield? I could go on but really, why are so many things half assed and haphazard. It reminds me of Go...
Constant "expression changed after it was checked" errors because the data model change tracking is fundamentally broken
Repeated refactoring of HTML form interop and it still kinda sucks
Major breaking changes on nearly every upgrade that take days to do, even on our small apps.
Crappy documention. There's no usage examples for most of the library, just the Angular version of Javadoc.
Terrible bike shedding by Angular and Material teams. I'm following a bunch of issues and I've never seen one closed. I've been following some of the threads for years.
That was a nasty rant but I have plenty of things to hate about Angular. React on the other hand has a mostly clean core API and doesn't force all this baggage on you. IMO this has spawned a competitive ecosystem where the bad ideas get shaken out. Angular is stuck in the past and feels creaky compared to React development these days.
JSX is the future. It's exactly how MVC frameworks used to work, and it would be popular for templating even if the rest of React didn't exist. Change tracking with props is another. It's simple, it works. Angular change tracking errors are the segfaults of front end dev
>Constant "expression changed after it was checked" errors because the data model change tracking is fundamentally broken
Sounds like are doing something wrong. At least I can't remember that particular one from three years of Angular >=2
> Repeated refactoring of HTML form interop and it still kinda sucks
Major breaking changes on nearly every upgrade that take days to do, even on our small apps.
I did most of upgrades for over a year I think. They were mostly trivial after reading up on the changes and I don't consider myself a 10x engineer. Pro tip: Learn to use this repo: https://github.com/cexbrayat/angular-cli-diff
> Crappy documention. There's no usage examples for most of the library, just the Angular version of Javadoc.
Not perfect (internal inconsistentencies where one paragraph says "don't do this" and a couple of pages down they do exactly that).
But far far from Javafoc.
> Terrible bike shedding by Angular and Material teams. I'm following a bunch of issues and I've never seen one closed. I've been following some of the threads for years.
I don't like Material either ;-)
For everyone else:
Like always: keep it simple. Stick with the standards. Use a good ide/editor. Use Angular CLI, stick to the style suggested by that even though you don't have to use it for every small thing.
Angular is 100% fading, albeit slowly. Seems like a lot of slow moving enterprise companies are still going with it anecdotally. I'd bet on very few new projects opting for it currently, and probably near zero within 2-3 years.
As to why, IMO Vue ate Angular's lunch. Single file components did everything angular's MVC wanted without all the failures like $scope and other things. React and Vue can coexist, but I think Vue and Angular are direct competition. Also see those developer surveys and the massive growth of popularity of Vue along with angular's fading.
The 2019 popularity link isn't, and the technicality difference between AngularJS vs 2+ isn't incredibly relevant at this macro level when AngularJS's failures are very much a reason 2+ failed to be adopted. While it came with big changes, it's still not that significantly night and day different to act as if they aren't related.
You're right that MVC no longer applies, but Vue's components still beat Angular 2+ and the dev world seems to have spoken pretty loudly about feature preference/priority, and many of those mean Vue over Angular while leaving React a bit more in its own world.
Brazil is doing a similar bank-agnostic system called PIX. Kinda interesting how in the previous thread where I mentioned it a lot of people were against it because it was "not competitive" while here I'm seeing (mostly) praise for UPI.
IMHO, this is how it should be, a bank-agnostic standard set by the central bank that other services use to connect to the central and with each other. Competition is good? Yes, but not when it's a complete mess.
Oh god. I got COMPLETELY derailed by this last month. My girlfriend's son was using my tablet (which is logged on my main Google account) and recently I was being victim of this, and suddenly he asked me "what's a bussy?"
I never logged my account out of an device so fast. Google needs to fix this crap.
I worked at a company last year (specifically their RPA sector) that one of the projects we got was create a "robot" to automate certain tasks within a client.
Later after we delivered it, we learned that project alone was the reason the client cut 700 low level positions. A single "robot" could do in an afternoon what 700 people did in a week. (Was/is a pretty large company.)
The words from my manager still echo in my mind: "If we think of the "ethical" aspect of it, we wouldn't have our own jobs."
The problem is not that jobs get automated away. Efficiency in of itself is a good thing.
The problem is that the gained efficiency is often not used to improve the lives of all (former) participants: There is little responsibility towards employees and customers. Businesses are not seen as communities, neither by employers nor by employees.
Leaders, owners, investors, employers and other powerful actors profit disproportionally, because their decisions are not tied to a holistic responsibility but only to financial metrics (which are also directed by them; a whole other problem).
There are also actors with higher (or sufficient?) ethical standards that will invest efficiency gains like you describe to educate and train their employees or at least give them the financial means. This inspires loyalty and trust.
I don't have a moral dilemma about my work cutting those kinds of jobs; it's busywork, their existence doesn't improve humanity. We're better off with something like UBI than paying people to do boring stuff that they don't really need to do.
I'm not saying it won't be the right move eventually, but that was 700 people who were getting paid for busywork who now aren't. Today I'd say there's still a dilemma.
If you apply the reversal test, the question becomes, in a world where these busywork jobs didn't exist, should we create them?
Or, taking a step back, if you ask "how many busywork jobs should there be?", it would be surprising if the answer is "exactly the number we have right how". So it seems either you should want to eliminate busywork jobs, or create more of them.
To me the "dilemma" smells like status quo bias.
I will say though, status quo bias is not all bad, there is some value to stability, but I'm not convinced it is the role of businesses to provide stability, that seems like a role for government.
It wouldn't be surprising if the dynamics of the human society pushed the number to the current number as being optimally stable for society. Too few busywork jobs and you have large crowds of protesters; to many busyworks jobs and the sectors of the economy that are growing in response to new opportunities are starved of labor. Not really stating a belief but just want to point out that in complex homeostatic systems it there are often dynamics pushing certain numbers to where they indeed are. Certainly true for body temperature and blood pH but no reason in principal not to be true of certain things about economics either.
Society and people's jobs / skills can be shifted rather more easily than bodily systems, though. Just look at the difference in the average day's tasks from 1820 to today.
Provide the right kinds of support, retraining, or yes, UBI, and we're no longer talking about people going hungry when they lose a menial RSI job. We're talking about people whose struggle to make ends meet can change into doing something that feels like a step up in the world.
Having the means to choose your employment is a HUGE thing for a lot of people. Been there, and I can feel the huge weight off my shoulders knowing that if for some reason my current job goes away, that I am certain I can find something comparable.
>> isn’t it better that everyone can type their own reports and check spelling and grammar themselves via code?
> It is...
Is it really? Seems like an awful lot of stuff just doesn't get checked any longer. The "checking" done by MS Word et al is no substitute for the eye of a skilled human.
I strongly agree... but we don’t have UBI. So for me it’s still a moral dilemma. That person is still out of a job and might be out of a job for a very long time if the economy is weak. Yes, there are answers to this problem like UBI, but as someone living in the US I can’t honestly say I can see it being implemented here any time soon. So my work has the potential to devastate someone else’s life.
(and yes, I know, I know, if I quit someone else will take my job and it’ll all happen anyway. Doesn’t mean it isn’t still a moral dilemma)
That’s a very easy thing to say when you’re not the one on the receiving end of these “transient problems”, though.
Would you tell a homeless person to their face that their poverty is a shame but it’s the price we need to pay for progress? And that you don’t know with any certainty when positive change will happen?
I have another argument that might be more convincing for you: automation makes things cheaper, so by definition it creates wealth for society. Now, you can argue that said wealth is unfairly distributed - and indeed wealth distribution itself is a thorny subject. But it is also a completely orthogonal one! I don't think we should stop from creating wealth until we find a "satisfactory" way to distribute it.... That feels like it would be a very bad idea to me.
There's a difference between being needlessly cruel and believing something is necessary and good, despite it creating some problems for some people for a while.
It feels analogous to ripping a person off of life support while saying "some day, you'll get an organ transplant. I prefer that to keeping you alive mechanically, strapped to a bed."
I wonder sometimes, in particular with smaller construction jobs. Work that can be done either by an overweight guy in a Bobcat, or a shovel crew of five to ten, in about the same time.
I wonder if the Bobcat is really that much cheaper. And the construction workers in photos from a hundred years ago always look much healthier & happier than the guy in the Bobcat.
Yeah, imagine a world where each employee had a team of highly trained specialists ensuring they had absolutely everything they need to do their job, and if they became sick at 2am on a Saturday, multiple people get woken up to take care of them. When the CEO parades investors around on the assembly floor, those employees are shined up, their capabilities are demonstrated, and they are showcased as the pinnacle of why their company is the best.
Low level employees would be lucky to be treated like robots.
Society was rich enough to support those 700 people, and now it's richer. Should be good news for them. It's a huge challenge getting to that point as a society, but there are also very rapidly evolving attitudes towards the problem (much more readiness to acknowledge that it is a problem, to start with.) I feel optimistic that this could be solved in the next hundred years.
Curious about how you feel about the number of people needed to farm 100 acres of, say corn, today vs 200 years ago. Was all the automation applied to that problem unethical?
It supports some markdown, but I agree, that and a dark mode (I made a really basic one for the Stylish extension) would be the only things I'd accept as a change.
Aside that anything like making the site full of JS for more functions would be a no from me. :-)
If I'm not mistaken their CEO (Stewart) is known for saying some... Weird things. And then changing his mind right after. (My experience is from as an user on early Flickr days and his game, Glitch.)
Uh, I'm gonna challenge you to give a source on that. Your comment sounds extremely biased towards React and dismissive towards Angular. None of those are dying out, I wouldn't we even say they compete directly.