Romaji to Kana Converter: React & Next.js — Chapter 1, Exercise 3
=====================================================================

TASK
Using this chapter's own compare-table, explain in your own words
why the Angular & Express course genuinely needed two separate
projects while this course doesn't -- and why that difference is a
real structural one, not just a stylistic preference.

SOLUTION

The difference comes down to what each framework actually is, not a
choice either course's author happened to make.

Angular is a client-side framework only -- it compiles down to
static HTML, CSS, and JavaScript that runs in the browser, with no
built-in mechanism of its own for running server-side code at all.
The moment that course committed to having a real conversion engine
running on a server (rather than purely in the browser, the way
Chapter 4 of this course will still have to decide for itself), it
had no choice but to reach for a genuinely separate piece of
software to be that server -- Express, in that course's case. That's
not a preference; there is no "Angular route handler" concept to use
instead, so a second project, a second `package.json`, and a second
running process were the only way to get a real server component
into that stack at all.

Next.js is structurally different: it was designed from the start to
be both a frontend framework and a lightweight backend framework at
once, expressed as two different capabilities of one single project
-- pages/components on one side, Route Handlers under app/api/ on
the other. Both halves are written in the same language, live in the
same folder tree, share the same package.json and node_modules, and
run through the exact same `npm run dev`/`npm run build` commands.
There's genuinely no second project to create here, because Next.js
itself already contains the thing Angular had to go get from
somewhere else.

So the real structural fact is: Angular's own architecture has no
server story built in, forcing a second technology to supply one;
Next.js's own architecture already includes a server story as a
native part of the framework. The two-projects-vs-one-project split
in this chapter's own compare-table is a direct, necessary
consequence of that difference, not two teams simply preferring
different setups for the same underlying situation.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
----------------------------
It explains the compare-table's own claim by tracing it back to a
real, structural capability difference between the two frameworks
(Angular has no native server layer; Next.js does) rather than
treating "two projects vs. one project" as an arbitrary stylistic
choice each course's author happened to make.