Angular Material VS Materializecss

Question

Well, after about a week, I try to launch the application with Angular Material.
After working so hard with Angular stuff and its nervous mistakes (which may never be resolved because of their milestone for the release of V2 for Angular V2 as soon as possible), now it blows my mind, so I have to use 616KB JS+CSS Angular Material module instead of 254KB JS+CSS Materializecss.
As I know (tell me if I'm wrong!):

Your best bet is to avoid modifying DOM elements whenever possible.

But the Angular material base is directives that cause a lot of skew / repression and are actually based on the demos I saw, Materializecss was much faster and easier than Angular Material.
This obvious Angular Material is more Angular - friendly and has some specific features, such as $mdThemingProvider and ..., but I have doubts about the use of Angular material or its performance.
Any words to make me believe in Angular Material again?
Should I use Angular Material instead of pure Angular + Materializecss?
Because I do not see major changes in their result?

Answer 1

Angular is an angular module containing angular directives. This was done specifically for angularjs, and materializecss is the only css library with a bit of javascript. You should use angular material because all components will work in your application, unlike materializecss, where some things will not work, they are intended for pure javascript or jQuery.

Answer 2

Go to materialize.

I don’t know why people refused your question. This is a legitimate question. And although Angular Material looks more attractive, because its name has the famous word "Angular". But this is definitely not the right choice. It may have better integration with Angular, but a good programmer can integrate Materialize equally well.

Angular The material does not yet have so many components. In fact, for some components, it does not even have the right examples.

I started the project in Angular Material, but then moved to Materialize a, because from September 20, 2017, it is much more extensive in the library. And also correctly documented with so many examples.

Answer 3

It now feels that MaterializeCSS is more mature and developed, with more features, animations and components.

However, Angular The material has a large ToDo list so that it can catch up, but it looks like this will happen before 2018 or later based on their github readme status . Nothing is planned after the end of 2017.

Materialize Pros and Cons

• PRO: The good thing about materialization is that What You Type is what you get, i.e. the html and css that you put into your Angular templates, just like it will be a browser, which means its very easy to style with css.

• CON: The bad thing about materialization is that it requires jquery, which means that using angular requires special configuration. If you use webpack, its very simple to use a plugin

Example:

  new webpack.ProvidePlugin({ $ : 'jquery', jQuery: 'jquery' }) 

This automatically makes jquery available in every module that uses it, so in reality it's not so bad.

• PRO: Another good thing: it's easy to transfer your html / css from one project to another, with its just html and css, no custom directives. Therefore, if you want to switch from Angular to reaction or to simple html, it will be easy using Materialize while saving all your layouts and styles.

• PRO: Well-developed, many components, many styles, many functions that really provide professional polishing for your application.

• PRO: Very good documentation and great examples.

• PRO: Developers are very responsive to GitHub and PR.

MaterializeCSS Score: +4

Angular Material Pros and Cons

• PRO: It's good that it was created for angular, so it has custom Angular directives. However, this also required installation, since you need to import a module, but which is no different from any Angular module.

• PRO: Developers are also very sensitive to GitHub and PR issues.

• CON: The bad thing about Angular stuff is that it translates all of these custom directives into its own html and css that I found can be quite difficult to override and customize, but not impossible.

• CON: Another bad thing is that the code is not portable. It only works for angular2 +, so you cannot switch frames with this. All of your layouts and styles are stuck in angular.

• CON: We need more progress before it becomes mature and can provide a complete experience with materials.

• CON: Poor documentation. The examples are limited, the examples have a minimal explanation, there are no parameters for what each example can do, confusing at best.

Angular Material rating: -2

Based on this brief analysis, in my opinion, materializing is the way to September 2017, even when using the angular2 + application. I use Materialize in my Angular 4 application and it works great. Hope this helps.