Pros of Angular CLI

• Official Angular tool with extensive documentation and community support
• Provides a complete development environment with built-in testing, linting, and production builds
• Offers easy scaffolding for components, services, and other Angular artifacts

Cons of Angular CLI

• Less flexible configuration options compared to custom Webpack setups
• Potentially steeper learning curve for developers new to Angular ecosystem
• May include unnecessary dependencies for simpler projects

Code Comparison

Angular CLI (angular.json):

{
  "projects": {
    "my-app": {
      "architect": {
        "build": {
          "builder": "@angular-devkit/build-angular:browser",
          "options": {
            "outputPath": "dist/my-app",
            "index": "src/index.html",
            "main": "src/main.ts"
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

Angular Webpack (webpack.config.js):

module.exports = {
  entry: './src/main.ts',
  output: {
    path: path.resolve(__dirname, 'dist'),
    filename: 'bundle.js'
  },
  module: {
    rules: [
      { test: /\.ts$/, loader: 'ts-loader' }
    ]
  }
};

The Angular CLI configuration is more declarative and abstracted, while the Angular Webpack setup offers more direct control over the build process. Angular CLI provides a more opinionated structure, whereas Angular Webpack allows for greater customization but requires more manual configuration.

Pros of webpack

• More versatile and can be used with various frameworks, not limited to Angular
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for additional functionality

Cons of webpack

• Steeper learning curve, especially for beginners
• More complex configuration required for advanced use cases
• May require additional setup for Angular-specific features

Code Comparison

angular-webpack:

module.exports = {
  entry: './src/app.ts',
  output: {
    filename: 'bundle.js'
  },
  module: {
    rules: [
      { test: /\.ts$/, loader: 'ts-loader' }
    ]
  }
};

webpack:

module.exports = {
  entry: './src/index.js',
  output: {
    filename: 'main.js',
    path: path.resolve(__dirname, 'dist')
  },
  module: {
    rules: [
      { test: /\.js$/, exclude: /node_modules/, use: 'babel-loader' }
    ]
  }
};

The code comparison shows that both configurations are similar, but webpack's example is more generic and not specifically tailored for Angular. angular-webpack focuses on TypeScript compilation, while the webpack example includes Babel for JavaScript transpilation.

Pros of Angular

• Official framework maintained by Google, ensuring long-term support and regular updates
• Comprehensive ecosystem with built-in tools, CLI, and extensive documentation
• Integrated dependency injection system for better modularity and testability

Cons of Angular

• Steeper learning curve due to its comprehensive nature and TypeScript requirement
• Larger bundle size, which may impact initial load times for applications
• More opinionated structure, potentially limiting flexibility for some developers

Code Comparison

Angular:

@Component({
  selector: 'app-root',
  template: '<h1>{{title}}</h1>'
})
export class AppComponent {
  title = 'Angular App';
}

Angular-Webpack:

angular.module('app', [])
  .component('appRoot', {
    template: '<h1>{{$ctrl.title}}</h1>',
    controller: function() {
      this.title = 'Angular-Webpack App';
    }
  });

Key Differences

• Angular uses TypeScript and decorators, while Angular-Webpack uses JavaScript and traditional Angular 1.x syntax
• Angular has a component-based architecture, whereas Angular-Webpack follows the older module-based approach
• Angular provides a more structured and opinionated framework, while Angular-Webpack offers more flexibility in configuration

Conclusion

Angular is a modern, full-featured framework suitable for large-scale applications, while Angular-Webpack is a lightweight solution for integrating Angular 1.x with Webpack. The choice between them depends on project requirements, team expertise, and desired level of control over the build process.

Pros of PatrickJS-starter

• More comprehensive and feature-rich starter kit
• Includes additional tools like TypeScript and RxJS
• Regularly updated with the latest Angular and webpack versions

Cons of PatrickJS-starter

• Steeper learning curve due to additional complexity
• Potentially overkill for smaller projects
• May require more configuration and setup time

Code Comparison

PatrickJS-starter:

import { NgModule } from '@angular/core';
import { BrowserModule } from '@angular/platform-browser';
import { AppComponent } from './app.component';

@NgModule({
  imports: [BrowserModule],
  declarations: [AppComponent],
  bootstrap: [AppComponent]
})
export class AppModule { }

angular-webpack:

import angular from 'angular';
import AppComponent from './app.component';

angular.module('app', [])
  .component('app', AppComponent);

Key Differences

• PatrickJS-starter uses Angular's newer TypeScript-based architecture
• angular-webpack relies on the older AngularJS (1.x) framework
• PatrickJS-starter includes more modern development practices and tooling
• angular-webpack is simpler and may be easier for beginners to understand

Both repositories aim to provide a starting point for Angular development with webpack, but they cater to different versions of Angular and varying levels of project complexity.

Pros of angular-seed

• More comprehensive and feature-rich, offering a complete development environment
• Includes testing setup with Karma and Jasmine out of the box
• Provides a modular structure for better code organization and scalability

Cons of angular-seed

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and extensive features
• May be overkill for smaller projects or those requiring a simpler setup
• Slightly slower build times compared to angular-webpack due to additional features

Code Comparison

angular-seed:

import { NgModule } from '@angular/core';
import { BrowserModule } from '@angular/platform-browser';
import { AppComponent } from './app.component';

@NgModule({
  imports: [BrowserModule],
  declarations: [AppComponent],
  bootstrap: [AppComponent]
})
export class AppModule { }

angular-webpack:

import angular from 'angular';
import AppComponent from './app.component';

angular.module('app', [])
  .component('app', AppComponent);

The code comparison shows that angular-seed uses Angular's more recent TypeScript-based approach, while angular-webpack uses the older AngularJS syntax. This reflects the different focuses of the two projects, with angular-seed being more up-to-date and comprehensive, while angular-webpack provides a simpler, webpack-centric setup for AngularJS projects.

Pros of generator-angular-fullstack

• Full-stack solution with both frontend and backend scaffolding
• Includes authentication and user management out of the box
• Offers a wider range of development tools and features

Cons of generator-angular-fullstack

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Potentially steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less flexibility for customizing the build process

Code Comparison

generator-angular-fullstack:

// Example of server-side route in generator-angular-fullstack
'use strict';

var express = require('express');
var controller = require('./thing.controller');

var router = express.Router();

router.get('/', controller.index);

angular-webpack:

// Example of webpack configuration in angular-webpack
var webpack = require('webpack');
var HtmlWebpackPlugin = require('html-webpack-plugin');

module.exports = {
  entry: './src/app.ts',
  output: { path: 'dist', filename: 'app.bundle.js' },
  module: { loaders: [ /* ... */ ] },
  plugins: [ new HtmlWebpackPlugin({ template: './src/index.html' }) ]
};

The code comparison highlights the different focus areas of the two projects. generator-angular-fullstack provides server-side routing and controller setup, while angular-webpack concentrates on frontend build configuration using Webpack.