Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

One is 272kb and the other is 78kb. This should be noted at the beginning of any article making such a comparison.


It's not really a fair comparison for several reasons. Namely that to match Ember's functionality, you have to add several libraries to your AngularJS app. Eventually you'll reach the point where you've effectively got the same size in several libraries, as opposed to one. This is the same argument the Backbone guys use to make and it's stupid.

If you don't need that level of functionality, then fine, don't pick up the framework with a few extra KBs. But keep in mind that with any luck, your app will start to grow. When it does you'll need to scale and perhaps you'll discover there was value in using a more functional framework.


It's 55kb gzipped. Angular is 30kb. Does that 25kb make all the difference?


Yes. The footprint matters. All that JS has to be parsed by the browser. The difference is not negligible.


Seriously? I mean, _really_? 200k? This isn't 1998 any more. If it was 2MB, you might have something resembling a point.


It's not the size, it's the footprint. And it very much matters on mobile.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: