Please, for god sake, stop the useless drama and look for the facts. 1. They are not going to release Angular 2 soon. Not going to happen in 2015 for sure. 2. Their is a big enough community around Angular 1.3 to fix the critical bugs outside of the core team. 3. They are going to support Angular 1.3 for at least 1.5 years after the release of 4. Your old application will be able to run for a very long period of time without rewriting it to Angular 2. 5. Most of the concepts you learned in Angular 1.3 will also be true for 2. The biggest change is the ES6 syntax (which is a big improvement).
The only logical reason to hate Angular 2 are either you don't like to the new way of doing thing (the Angular team is very open to suggestions) or just plain fear of being left behind (not gonna happen). On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:25:04 AM UTC-5, Alexey Dubovtsev wrote: > > >as time invested in yourself, and this isn't lost - it only prepares you > for the future. > I'm absolutely understand your position and exactly because your position > i telling you than you are immature. > > I will show you couple of examples: > 1. You are buying your mobile phone with GSM network support and after 1 > year, your operator will tell you that you should buy new phone because of > new LTE 4G standard and throw out your phone, because there is preparation > for the future. > 2. You are buying 20 applications in yours App Store or Windows Store, and > after that Apple or Microsoft will update operation system and none of this > application will works, and they tell you that you are invested in the > future. > 3. You are buying a car and government tell you that your could not use it > anymore in 1 year because if ecological concerns and you should buy new one > (invest your own money), because you should care about our future. > 4. You are borrowing credit from bank by 4% per year, and after half of > year bank telling you that you should pay 20% because of world economics > instability and you should invest in the future. > 5. Or even more radical, government decide don't support roads because you > should your brand new rail transportation system, and you could waste your > car, because this is investment in your future. > > Framework development, provide for many developer infrastructure. > In despite of excellent implementation of functional (2waydatabinding, > templates, ets) and non-fucntional (performance, etc) requirements, very > strong *value* of framework is *your commitment to support it. *When you > easily annulate this commitment, this sounds like you are not respecting > people who are using your technology nd you are not care about they > opinion. > > A lot of people relying on yours infrastructure, for them so radical > changes covered by words of investment for they abstract future means > threat for the business. > A lot of developers who are using your framework not just playing and > educating, they are under pressure of business requirements, they should > deliver in deadlines, and they have clear and obvious expectations = they > are expecting that they could rely on infrastructure. > > > > Thanks, > Alex > > > среда, 12 ноября 2014 г., 12:43:13 UTC+4 пользователь tonypee написал: >> >> 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 >> >> -- 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.
