Modern front-end development: skinny jeans and handlebar mustaches ITT

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Modern front-end development: skinny jeans and handlebar mustaches ITT

Quebec Bagnet: Apr 28, 2009; mess with the honk
you get the bonk; Lipstick Apathy

DreadCthulhu posted:

Couple of points I'd love you guys to elucidate for me:

I'm a Backbone user who's never worked with Angular. I've seen claims that Angular is a lot easier to partially integrate into an existing server-side website than Backbone. As in, you can opt to have one or two pages be SPAs if the use case calls for it, and you can still reap the benefits of server-side templating for the rest of the site. The claim is that Backbone pretty much calls for a complete integration across the entire website. Is there any truth to this?

What are some basic rules of thumbs for deciding when you'd really benefit of a SPA over traditional server-side rendering? I've been really lazy and just decided to have the entire front-end in a SPA, but then I've somewhat regretted it due to how much slower everything is now, for what is in my case a very small gain.

We do just that for some stuff here. One of our main applications is a large lumbering ASP.NET web forms behemoth and we've written a few custom components for it with Angular. It doesn't touch anything outside your application container element which is a huge win for integration.
We do a ton of server-side rendering for the application I'm working on. It's a huge performance win since we need to support IE8, so Angular is mostly used for the client-side UI with a lot of templating happening server-side. We have one form with over 2000 possible controls which in practice is usually around 20-50 depending on specific circumstances - I wouldn't want to have to generate all that dynamically with Angular just for performance reasons alone. We have three SPAs in this application, the entire administration section is one, then two for the customer side of things.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2013 15:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 20, 2024 02:49

Quebec Bagnet: Apr 28, 2009; mess with the honk
you get the bonk; Lipstick Apathy

If you hate manually designing and laying out HTML and just want to get some widgets on screen it's great. I also find I rarely have to go outside the framework for anything (except for stuff designed for it). Ext apps definitely behave more like native desktop/mobile applications but it's great for things where you want to think more about the widgets and components than the actual HTML. That said, my background is desktop applications. If you're used to jQuery callback soup and sperging over templating engines you may find the learning curve to be more of a cliff.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2013 01:26

Quebec Bagnet: Apr 28, 2009; mess with the honk
you get the bonk; Lipstick Apathy

I prototyped a Gulp-like tool written in PowerShell at work a while ago. It was actually pretty straightforward, PS' pipeline model is pretty powerful and friendly. The end result was a set of building blocks that could be used like:

code:

Get-ChildItem *.js | Concat-Files | Minify-Js | Out-File app.js

So maybe you'd be happy with something like that.

Quebec Bagnet fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Feb 6, 2015

# ¿ Feb 6, 2015 06:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Modern front-end development: skinny jeans and handlebar mustaches ITT