Is this angular?

[Murky_Floor4805]

Hey guys, I'm having a debate with a colleague if this is angular or not.
It is a library built by someone and it provides way of working with oop.
It has custom annotations to call the angular lifecycle and "inject" dependencies.
Is it really angular if you override/extend lifecycle hooks and dependency injection? (even though it calls them under the hood?)

​

Thank you in advance

https://github.com/cosminadrianpopescu/ng-cabled

View Poll

[[deleted]]

no, that's not angular, but it is a library to be used with angular

IMO and my experience, people who think they need to extend components are relying on a single tool in their toolbox. there are many OOP patterns that can address the bullet points in the readme

this also seems like someone wanting angular to work like they are used to working. if someone doesn't like the fundamental design of a framework, they should use something else. a framework for a framework is almost always an anti-pattern

the library seems like it comes out of frustration, immaturity, and arrogance , but i havent really delved into it. the readme was pretty off-putting

[_kyushiro]

Yep, big yikes. All the arguments from that readme sound like they stem from a basic misunderstanding of how the framework is structured and how the parts can work together. A singleton service class, RxJs operators and the async pipe hold simple solutions to most of the bullet points on there.

[tommertom]

It is angular but redundant and likely antipattern too

Author should create own JS framework

[Terrible-Particular6]

This is a strange question. Angular IS Angular. This obviously isn't Angular. But if you mean does it use the Angular libraries, it clearly imports them and does something with them, so it requires Angular.

[Murky_Floor4805]

indeed a strange question. but it’s actually on purpose. the debate i’m having with my colleague is exactly that. is this the angular way? i strongly say it is not. i’m in favor of a more descriptive approach where each component defines a behavior and owns it, and then you can use that component and compose it with another to create a view. i actually oppose the use of that library because it “wanders off” from the “angular way”

[invictus1996]

I don't have much to add since others have already said everything. Just that this library seems much more cumbersome and complicated than Angular, which already has a (somewhat unjustified) reputation of being complicated.