Messages
Reply
Edit
Delete02:03 pm
3U80U45X7
| From: | Rick Strahl |
| To: | Marty Glynn |
Bad design is bad design. Don't blame the indidividual tools. Blame the developers that don't know how to use the tools properly.
I've used knockout on a few projects and it works very well for what it's designed for, which is purely databinding. Especially if you have lots of dynamic two way bindings in your UI. It'll also be faster than Angular because it's explicit about its bindings while Angular requires internal observation loops in the background to fire databinding updates - the larger the dataset the slower it gets while knockout will stay pretty stable in perf.
That said Angular is a completely different animal than knockout. knockout is purely for databinding, while Angular is a full JavaScript framework for module management, databinding, resource loading and managing large codebases in separated files. Angular is also a lot more complex than knockout, simply because it does so much more than databinding.
Neither knockout nor Angular rely on jQuery although either will use it if it's loaded. Using jQuery IMHO is not optional for either, even though they run without.
+++ Rick ---
My company had 6 developers working on a .NET MVC site using knockout for almost a year. The result is a disaster. When the first page loads, 90 js files (e.g. telerik, jquery,jqueryui, - lots of plugins, etc) and 30 css files are downloaded. It's a nightmare. I've only made a superficial review of knockout and the Google equivalent - AngularJS. It appears to me, Google's got MS beat. I don't like the fact the knockout sits on jQuery - while Angjular handles AJAX internally.
Anybody seen a large, successful site using knockout?
Rick Strahl
West Wind Technologies
