My Angular course: https://angularstart.com/

To counter my bias toward RxJS (as the solution that I am most familiar with), I have been taking a "signals first" approach. But there are some situations, like host bindings for events, where I still find RxJS to be the more declarative and elegant solution.

Get weekly content and tips exclusive to my newsletter: https://mobirony.ck.page/4a331b9076 

My game dev channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TypedPixels

MY GEAR:
Keyboard: https://adm42.dev/?ref=3
Neovim setup: https://github.com/joshuamorony/lazyvim/
Animations: https://motioncanvas.io/

0:00 Signals first
0:33 Using signals with host binding
2:52 Declarative RxJS approach

#angular #rxjs #signals 

- More tutorials: https://modernangular.com

Joshua Morony

The post explores the use of RxJS for host binding in Angular as opposed to signals. The author shares personal insights and preferences, highlighting that while signals can be useful, RxJS offers more benefits in terms of code readability and maintainability. The discussion includes an example of a game component with keyboard event handling using both approaches.

Why I'm still using RxJS (not signals) for host binding in Angular

<p>RXJS is a library. You learn how to use it, you can use it everywhere outside angular. The learning curve might be “steeper” than signals, but it’s worth knowing what you are doing instead of relying on some framework witchcraft</p>


<p>Rxjs works better with it because the API was built specifically with rxjs in mind. It will be replaced with a proper API soon.
Also rxjs will never be more maintainable and readable than proper async or signal based code, that’s just a straight up lie. Signals are straightforward to test, observables are so hard to test that most angular projects I’ve seen, people really bother to test it and it creates so many bugs. That’s a major indicator that it’s not maintainable</p>
