What are the commonly used front-end development frameworks

One, the Web front-end framework of Angular 2

Angular 2 advantages of analysis:

The biggest advantage of Angular 2 is its popularity. Some believe that its name, closely associated with Google, has influenced teams to use it.The rapid popularity of Angular 1 was due to the fact that those coming from other interactive application development environments would find a similar model-view pattern for developing single-page web applications. By modernizing and evolving Angular 1 and refactoring some parts of the framework, Angular 2 has really exploded in popularity, with an impressive number of formal and informal training institutes and a strong market for developers. For users it has a rich set of components for building user interfaces, one of the few frameworks in this series to do so.

Disadvantages Explained:

We feel that the Angular framework's focus on creating user interfaces in single-page applications doesn't address the larger concern of building complete web applications, which can lead to hard-to-maintain projects if not nailed down early on, and that in real-world projects the runtime provisioning of technologies that aren't part of the core framework can often feel like an impossibility. unthinkable, which greatly reduces the value of TypeScript to the end developer.

Where we're going:

Angular 5 has just been released, and it looks like Angular has managed to live up to its promise of rapid release versions, and with Google's continued support, Angular is going to get more and more mature.

Like many large organizations, Google has multiple (split) personalities, and outwardly there is a lot of harmony between the Angular team and those focused on browser standards. But our view is that harmony is a thin layer of window dressing, and the Angular team doesn't really have a solution for web components and progressive web applications. We believe that the industry's generally accepted standards will be implemented incrementally in the Angular framework, and that this is a medium/long-term risk that will affect how well Angular applications are built.

Environments:

If you need access to technical resources within a large framework, where the technology is generally easy to port, or if you need to train developers in the framework and have some confidence that they will gain some development skills in the short term, then you may want to consider Angular 2. It's important to note that Angular 1 (angular.js) is very different from Angular 2, and the applications, techniques, and experiences therein are not directly portable to Angular 2 development.

If your web application translates well to the standard model-view pattern, then you can ignore the rest and consider Angular2.

If you're happy with the Google Material UX design pattern, then Material Angular is a fast, easy, and reliable way to follow it.

Two, the Web front-end framework of ReactRex

ReactRex advantage analysis:

The biggest advantage of React and Rex is their relative simplicity and focus. It's very hard to do something and do it well, but both libraries accomplish their goals very effectively. While the state container approach may be external for some, most developers can still easily grasp the concepts and understand the benefits of a unidirectional data architecture that simplifies a large number of user interface applications.

Weaknesses Explained:

The biggest weakness of React and Rex is not what they are, but what they are not. To build a feature-rich web application, you need a lot of functionality, and once you move away from the core of React and Rex and some of the other libraries, you'll find a very decentralized community with a myriad of solutions and patterns that don't easily fit together.

So while React and Rex are both very focused libraries, inexperienced teams can easily generate non-maintainable solutions rather than realizing that the choices they're making will lead to poor performance or bugs. Even experienced developers may realize that a loose architecture or convention may haunt them in the future.

False savings are a lie to yourself, and organization-wide adoption of React and Rex will easily reduce inefficiency issues. Without the extensive conventions and standardization of other libraries and patterns, standardizing ReactRex is more efficient than the JavaScript we are adopting to write our applications.

Where it's going:

Facebook and React have recently taken a break from tedious additional patent disputes, recognizing that, just like any other project, the broader community can raise its voice. I think this helped Facebook realize that they couldn't get to know us better enough to trust us to steer the project. Hopefully this will continue to inform the character and technical direction of the project.

It's hard to predict the future of React and Rex. However, grouping libraries together does significantly improve adaptability, and most ReactRex patterns promote a separated architecture that allows for easy refactoring and iteration. Two years ago, everyone's favorite was still ReactFlux, but the community as a whole quickly embraced Rex. other major shifts in thinking or paradigm may be easy to adopt. This key capability may last well into the future.

User environment:

If you rarely need hand-holding and are looking for a better library than a full-blown framework, then ReactRex is probably the right one. You'll need to be honest not only about the capabilities of your team and organization, but also during your initial development, and throughout the long-term maintenance of your application.

Three, the Web front-end framework of Vue.js

vue.js advantage introduction:

Incremental building ability is the biggest advantage of vue.js, vue has a concise and reasonable architecture, making it easy to understand and build.

vue has a strong community of passionate people, which adds tremendous value to vue.js and makes it easy to create a comprehensive solution for a blank project.

Disadvantages described:

Transitioning between model-view applications and state-container-type applications to each other can be confusing, and even though there is no perfect inclusion of a perfect transition from one schema to the other, it makes it feel like there is a desire to maintain the relevance of the two schemas. For those expecting a perfect solution from vue.js, and potentially making it difficult to maintain inconsistent applications, this is confusing to say the least.

An even bigger challenge is that vue.js relies on a single person, and it's clear that the other projects are basically supported by a single organization, but it makes more sense that while it has a strongly documented community and a number of innovative additions, the development of the core of vue basically falls to a single person.

It's great to see vue becoming more receptive to emerging standards approaches, but its Web component-like model, rather than a true Web component, is probably where vue has more to gain than to lose.

Prospects:

While vue.js has a fairly wide adoption, it's hard to predict how long the momentum will last in the medium term; it's not directly supported and maintained by a commercial organization, and so a lot will depend on the viability of the maintainers and their desire to continue to do so.

It has also shown a degree of language adaptability and continues to keep its language modern and current as certain patterns fall out of fashion and out of favor, and there is no indication that the vue.js architecture will not be able to adapt to further development in the future.

Usage scenarios:

If you have a legacy web application and need a strong and robust application layer, then vue.js may be a good choice, with clear patterns that even inexperienced teams can use correctly or incorrectly. Even though the vue UX framework doesn't have out-of-the-box functionality, it's also possible to build apps with a lot of persistence on vue.js, which will benefit your project.