Corneliu et al,

 

Just to add/answer a few extras

*         Yeoman is a scaffolder – install it and go “yo Aurelia” (from memory) 
and you get an entire working project all setup

*         Angular2 and Aurelia are both reasonable choices (IMHO). I do like 
the Aurelia syntax better

o   The mobile performance will be critical to both of these

*         Both are reasonable learning curves

*         The future is ES6/Ecmascript2015, modules and classes (IMHO). 
Typescript helps but ES6 is the killer syntax (IMHO). Learn ES6 and you can 
really start to structure your JS packages much better but coupled with a 
module loader/dependency manager, it is very good (see point below).

*         Coupled above with an excellent package manager like JSPM which can 
load, minify and bundle your JS dependencies and packages. It really is good. 
It is smart enough to know what all your dependencies are and make them 
available in one file.

*         >> Side note> Angular1 requires a massive amount of work to get 
anything working

o   I don’t really agree with that although it does take more work. We use 
Angular 1 with little work and have a complex set of functionality built using 
it and it really helped. But that’s a side note/opinion.

*         Been also using Ionic which is based on Angular 1 (amongst other 
things). Its great. It will be moving to Angular2 when its out so I’d say its 
worth learning both Angular2 and Aurelia just for that.

 

Finally, if you learn nothing else, learn ES6 and JSPM. They can really help in 
your decision making.

 

-          Glav

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of Corneliu I. Tusnea
Sent: Wednesday, 9 September 2015 4:14 PM
To: ozDotNet <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: TypeScript summary

 

Thomas,

 

You can just add aurelia to the head and be done and started just like 
Angular(1) albeit your productivity will be slow.

 

Your issues sound to me like saying I can just open Notepad and start coding my 
C# project. Why would I install Visual Studio?

Why would you install Nuget or MSBuild or System.Web.Optimization libraries to 
bundle JS files? You installed them all as part of Visual Studio, that's the 
only difference.

- node.js is like .Net framework (that comes these days as part of Windows)

- gulp is msbuild

- nuget is npm and bower

- System.Web.Optimization is like jspm + nuget

- Yeoman - I have no idea, I haven't installed or used that

- systemjs is not required, it's a nice to have to make things easier to load 
and do the bundling/dependency resolving to avoid you to "just add another .js 
file to the head". You can keep doing that and not need systemjs. Kind of the 
.Net BundleCollection on steroids.

- Babel - don't know, didn't use it.

- TypeScript - it's an awesome option that compiles down to JS directly without 
Babel. You really want to use this unless to avoid writing JS. Typescript looks 
and feels like C# instead of JS.

Again, it's optional but heck, I hate JS

 

You can get prepared startup projects for VisualStudio with none of the above 
odd tools:

https://github.com/cmichaelgraham/aurelia-typescript/tree/master/skel-nav-require-vs-ts

Clean, .Net solution with couple of JS files. 

 

Side note> Angular1 requires a massive amount of work to get anything working 
and get a project more than a simple demo of the ground. Angular2 has a hard to 
read syntax. How am I supposed to make the difference between (click) and 
[click] and {click} and what each does?

 

Look, I totally hate JS and I only started to use these tools myself last week, 
I also found the confusing at times and all have funny names and can't figure 
out why there are configurations for requirejs, amd, system, systemjs and 4 
other loader libraries or what are the differences between them but heck, after 
few days of work I got something cool working, and a great UI that I tried to 
build before in Angular and I hated myself every day I had to learn some random 
new awkward behaviour, directive, service, provider, filter ...

 

I found Aurelia to rock in design and simplicity compared to Angular and found 
it fast to learn and apply.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

 

 

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Thomas Koster <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

On 9 September 2015 at 13:18, Corneliu I. Tusnea
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
> Compared to Augular2 Aurelia simply rocks and it's so dead easy to
> setup.

Aurelia looks interesting, but a quick scan through "Getting
Started" [1] reveals that you need the following to, ah, get started:

- node.js for the entire toolchain,
- Gulp to build,
- jspm or bower for front end package management,
- Yeoman for scaffolding,
- systemjs for client-side DI,
- Babel, CoffeeScript or TypeScript for "compiling" to browser-
  compatible ES5/JavaScript.

I have none of these things installed, yet I can start a new AngularJS
project today by simply adding angular.js to my html head.

Do you mean something else by "dead easy to setup"? All this sounds
exactly like the JS ecosystem hell that Greg K meant.

[1] http://aurelia.io/get-started.html

--
Thomas Koster

 

Reply via email to