Should this be the future of Angular applications?

The new experimental .ng format introduced in AnalogJS provides an arguably simpler and more boilerplate free component authoring experience for Angular. Combined with a different approach to services, we can create entire Angular applications without using any decorators or classes.

0:00 Introduction
0:58 The .ng format
2:29 Services without classes
3:56 Thoughts

#angular

[oFableo]

As an angular developer, this is a mess. If you like this style, use react

[beezaa]

I would absolutely hate to have my typescript mixed in with my template code. I like it separated how it is currently.

[otdvrif]

I like how angular separates template from the component class, I wouldn't want to use this.

[samchilvers]

Wow. It's been a long time since I was writing AngularJS, and I've forgotten most of what I knew, but your suggestion for services in this video reminds me a lot of the code I used to write in AngularJS. I personally don't want to go back there.

[GLawSomnia]

You will probably get a lot of support from the twitter community and people who like new shiny new things, but people who actually work on actual business applications (especially multiple projects) will most likely hate it. It doesn't really bring anything useful to the table, even the boilerplate argument is useless, considering the CLI generators do everything for you.

Why would we actually want to re-learn everything? Just use Vue/Svelt then.
I myself also don't understands the benefits of folder based routing. But ok this might be on me

[nomoredarts]

The title should be - how to overengineer angular application without particular reason

[ianokay]

This is like the "Marvel: What If?" channel for Angular where you see all these potential horrors from an alternate universe

[DummyFace]

I believe that frameworks deserve their own syntax. Conceptually, an angular component isn't a function, that's not how we think of it. And all of that boilerplate is essentially memorizing the words of the Angular Component spell.
How svelte has its own syntax, it certainly helps and is appreciated. That's why reactive is so fluid. Its a syntax/language that understand these concepts and doesn't make you repeat a magical incantation.
Or how if a specialized device has it's own language made for it, such as relational databases and SQL/TSQL, those languages are the best way for interfacing with these specialized things. A relational language for relational data.
But then you've got Microsoft LINQ which attempts to... help out data access code, but making a language that is LESS specialized and it's literally a step in the wrong direction. LINQ isn't relational it's something else, like hierarchical.

And I'm not a fan all of these unique concepts like rxjs and monads in general being implemented as javascript functions. These are the kinds of things that deserver their own syntax and not use javascript

[Tomas-irxl]

Honestly, this just looks like one big mess. "ng" component is one single super long file (template, styles, logic), the service is one long single function. Might as well put everything in a single file and say how cool it is when you have everything in one place. That's a nightmare, not the future.

[rnd_equilibrium]

1:05 so why not use svelt or vue?

5:14 counting lines on both sides results in one less for the „alternative“ approach (55 vs 56) so no benefit at all

5:27 exactly how it is today. If I want to use svelt, react, vue or what ever else is out there I would use that.

[beeeeeeeeeeep]

What!? wait... NO!!! Some people do not understand where the Angular community comes from. This would destroy that framework for sure!!!

[CristianDeGraciaNuero]

The frontend needs state and what a surprise: classes are the right tool to hold state. Stop this, if you want React code like, just use React.

[chaos_monster]

Another video about authoring format - this feels like pushing a personal agenda at this point and not being divers and informative. I honestly want to understand why you've chosen Angular as framework of your choice and did not go with something else?

[btx]

The main aspect WHY I USE ANGULAR is entirely missing in this concept: Splitting HTML, TS and SCSS to different files. Combining all code in 5000 lines files is the greatest shit trend of the last years.

[orangesmartie]

@JoshuaMorony, maybe you just like react? because this is kinda what it's looking like. effects => useEffect, signals => useState. no classes -> functional programming like how react moved from classes to functions and hooks.

[madeOfClay]

Hell, at this point, the Angular team should create a new Angular framework from scratch, AGAIN.

The current Angular framework is great, there is room for improvement, sure, but not to re-define pretty much everything.

[TayambaMwanza]

People, Analog ≠ Angular.

Be happy that there is a viable alternave for those who want one and that they will still get the benefits of the Angular ecosystem with they syntax they prefer.

Analogs changes do not mean Angular is changing the same way.

[hrabianero]

I like Angular because of what it is and how code looks. If i wanted my code to look like puke i would use React. BUT options are always good, replacements not always.

[grigach]

What's wrong with classes or decorators?

Decorators exist in many languages and in Angular case they allow aspect-oriented paradigm.
Imho, every programmer should be aware of what they do. Angular uses them at a bare minimum, just to stick some metadata.
They are perfect for metaprogramming, and someday they will be supported natively by JavaScript.

Regarding classes, I believe it's a very convenient structural unit.
A combination of state and behavior, you can do just about anything with them.
And we do.

[danielzaiser]

why move everything in a single file?
do you not like to seperate .ts, .html, .scss?