haha. 2002->2009 = 7 years. good work on the counting tony ;P On 12 November 2014 00:41, Tony pee <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alexey, from your points i gather that you are basically upset about the > time that people have *invested* already in angular 1.x and feel that this > shouldn't be *wasted*. Despite the fact that 1.x isn't going anywhere and > therefore there isnt any *loss* involved; I would encourage you to see the > time that you spend learning something, as time invested in yourself, and > this isn't lost - it only prepares you for the future. > > Learning angular has taught me to better appreciate and learn concepts > like DI, MVVM, testing, etc. But, despite its good intentions, it is based > on dated technologies. It targeted and supported IE6 when it began!! and > until 1.3 supported IE8. These are NOT modern technologies, and to restrict > the ability to utilize the new features (Web Componenents, shadowdom, even > es5) seems silly. > > Anton- The problem with the web moving so fast is really that it stagnated > for so long! When IE has 95% usage in 2002 with ie6, it stopped innovating. > how long was it before IE8? (lets skip over ie7.. thats not an innovation). > It was 2009. Thats 9 years of stagnation. In this time es4 was scrapped, > standards bodies couldnt agree, etc. Now, the web its finally moving > forward to produce new technologies which will make development easier, and > more suited for modern application development. We should embrace these. > > If angular does not embrace new technologies, we have a few other options. > A- change to a new, more unfamiliar modern framework. B- have to 'roll your > own' projects based on new technologies. C- start your own framework > (everyone has to build a framework at least once right?). I'm glad that we > are being given a chance to learn and see what can be built on the new > tech. And as a final reminder - it is UP TO YOU whether you use it, the > existing tech is still here > > > > > On 11 November 2014 23:06, Anton Trapp <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think the major problem is the quick paradigm shift. Take ember. There >> is a 99% chance that an example on the web is not compatible with the >> version you are working because the API changes every few minutes >> (exaggerated *lol*). When you are working with ember you know that the doc >> you are reading is probably outdated and learn to live with that or move to >> AngularJS or other frameworks. >> >> In Java there are methods since 1.0, marked as deprecated and nobody ever >> takes them out of the code because it would break some stuff. That's why >> Java programming still sucks to all that have tried ruby for a few hours ;) >> Ruby on the other hand (or Ruby on Rails as framework) handles >> deprecations rather fast. A "hey, this is deprecated" can change to a >> "where is it?" in a couple of months. However there are clear migration >> guides and it stays the same framework. And if bigger things change, they >> change in modules over years. So you don't have to spend one year to update >> all your customer programs without earning a penny, which most companies >> could not afford. >> >> What I heard about Angular 2.0 I would not call it Angular 2.0. It is >> another framework. I think many people will move away from Angular because >> the switch to Meteor, ember, ... is not producing more work than the switch >> to Angular 2.0. That's sad, apart from scopes in directives it is really >> the best framework I know ;) >> >> What would be great: Clear commitments from the beginning. If you know >> how long something will be supported you can make decisions. A clear >> message about the migration path to the future (throw everything away every >> x years can be OK if you know it). >> >> But the biggest problem is common to all open source stuff: 1 to n people >> are needing something, they do what they need, other are jumping on that >> train, not contributing anything (most of them), using everything for free >> and after some time the people who are driving the development are moving >> to something different. They can do this any time they want, and it is >> perfectly OK. >> What I think is a little bit unfortunate is a "Hey, we have something >> cool for you. Throw away all you didi in the last years, everything is >> better now." approach ;) >> >> With gems/plugins/components it's simple to choose: Is the component so >> small and easy that you can maintain it yourself? Use it, otherwise forget >> it. Writing your own framework is not that easy. But when I am looking in >> the migration efforts you could be better off using only jQuery in most of >> your applications. Many people use frameworks like AngularJS because they >> can do cool things, but most of the things you don't really need. 10% >> faster development, 5% less bugs for 180% more work (if you have the luck >> of getting a major Angular update)? Using Angular in one project, >> definitively will consider other frameworks for future projects... Without >> a clear message and commitment you can spend 3 - 6 months updating to 2.0 - >> 1 month after that you can get a "we have something new, 3.0 will be much >> better, throw it away again". >> >> And if they find, that they loose 20, 50, or 80% of the Angular users it >> could happen that there will be a 1.x fork that outruns Angular 2.0 which >> can than pass away slowly (not good for the people who wrote all >> applications new). And even if the user base is splitting and you have 20% >> 1.x users 20% 2.x users, 20% 3.x users and so on - that does not look >> perfect for me. >> >> In short: the point for me is not what they are doing, but how. Some >> years ago everybody jumped on open source, now more and more people are >> moving away, because they calculated that it is more expensive in the long >> run. Maybe some brilliant minds will show up with some new models of >> software development in the future ;) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "AngularJS" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/angular. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Tony Polinelli > > -- Tony Polinelli -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AngularJS" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/angular. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
