Answer:

         JavaScript has two sets of equality operators: === and !==, and their evil   twins == and !=. The good ones work the way you would expect. If the two operands are of the same type and have the same value, then === produces true and !== produces false. The evil twins do the right thing when the operands are of the same type, but if they are of different types, they attempt to coerce the values. the rules by which they do that are complicated and unmemorable. These are some of the interesting cases:

'' == '0'           // false
0 == ''             // true
0 == '0'            // true

false == 'false'    // false
false == '0'        // true

false == undefined  // false
false == null       // false
null == undefined   // true

' \t\r\n ' == 0     // true

The lack of transitivity is alarming. My advice is to never use the evil twins. Instead, always use === and !==. All of the comparisons just shown produce false with the === operator.

Update:

var a = [1,2,3];
var b = [1,2,3];

var c = { x: 1, y: 2 };
var d = { x: 1, y: 2 };

var e = "text";
var f = "te" + "xt";

a == b            // false
a === b           // false

c == d            // false
c === d           // false

e == f            // true
e === f           // true

"abc" == new String("abc")    // true
"abc" === new String("abc")   // false

• How do I architect and design client-side web applications differently? What is the biggest difference?
• What should I stop doing/using; What should I start doing/using instead?
• Are there any server-side considerations/restrictions?

Answer:

1. Don't design your page, and then change it with DOM manipulations

2. Don't augment jQuery with AngularJS

3. Always think in terms of architecture

The view is the "official record"

<ul class="main-menu">
    <li class="active">
        <a href="#/home">Home</a>
    </li>
    <li>
        <a href="#/menu1">Menu 1</a>
        <ul>
            <li><a href="#/sm1">Submenu 1</a></li>
            <li><a href="#/sm2">Submenu 2</a></li>
            <li><a href="#/sm3">Submenu 3</a></li>
        </ul>
    </li>
    <li>
        <a href="#/home">Menu 2</a>
    </li>
</ul>

$('.main-menu').dropdownMenu();

<ul class="main-menu" dropdown-menu>
    ...
</ul>

Data binding

$.ajax({
  url: '/myEndpoint.json',
  success: function ( data, status ) {
    $('ul#log').append('<li>Data Received!</li>');
  }
});

<ul class="messages" id="log">
</ul>

$http( '/myEndpoint.json' ).then( function ( response ) {
    $scope.log.push( { msg: 'Data Received!' } );
});

<ul class="messages">
    <li ng-repeat="entry in log">{{ entry.msg }}</li>
</ul>

<div class="messages">
    <div class="alert" ng-repeat="entry in log">
        {{ entry.msg }}
    </div>
</div>

Distinct model layer

Separation of concerns

Dependency injection

4. Test-driven development - always

<a href="/hello" when-active>Hello</a>

it( 'should add "active" when the route changes', inject(function() {
    var elm = $compile( '<a href="/hello" when-active>Hello</a>' )( $scope );

    $location.path('/not-matching');
    expect( elm.hasClass('active') ).toBeFalsey();

    $location.path( '/hello' );
    expect( elm.hasClass('active') ).toBeTruthy();
}));

.directive( 'whenActive', function ( $location ) {
    return {
        scope: true,
        link: function ( scope, element, attrs ) {
            scope.$on( '$routeChangeSuccess', function () {
                if ( $location.path() == element.attr( 'href' ) ) {
                    element.addClass( 'active' );
                }
                else {
                    element.removeClass( 'active' );
                }
            });
        }
    };
});

5. Conceptually, directives are not packaged jQuery

.directive( 'myDirective', function () {
    return {
        template: '<a class="btn">Toggle me!</a>',
        link: function ( scope, element, attrs ) {
            var on = false;

            $(element).click( function () {
                on = !on;
                $(element).toggleClass('active', on);
            });
        }
    };
});

1. First, jQuery was never necessary. There's nothing we did here that needed jQuery at all!
2. Second, even if we already have jQuery on our page, there's no reason to use it here; we can simply use angular.element and our component will still work when dropped into a project that doesn't have jQuery.
3. Third, even assuming jQuery was required for this directive to work, jqLite (angular.element) will always use jQuery if it was loaded! So we needn't use the $ - we can just use angular.element.
4. Fourth, closely related to the third, is that jqLite elements needn't be wrapped in $ - the elementthat is passed to the link function would already be a jQuery element!
5. And fifth, which we've mentioned in previous sections, why are we mixing template stuff into our logic?

.directive( 'myDirective', function () {
    return {
        scope: true,
        template: '<a class="btn" ng-class="{active: on}" ng-click="toggle()">Toggle me!</a>',
        link: function ( scope, element, attrs ) {
            scope.on = false;

            scope.toggle = function () {
                scope.on = !scope.on;
            };
        }
    };
});

Summary