Mostly bad. As Guillaume said, the fact that they have chosen to rewrite completely the framework (revolution vs. evolution) in version 2.0 means there's no point in using Angular 1.3 (a soon to be dead framework) on new stuff. And we cannot discuss about using Angular 2.0 until we see what it is about and how well it is received, which will take at least 1 year since it's first release. Moreover, the trend seems to be to move away from big monolithic JavaScript frameworks like Angular towards small libraries that perform specific tasks and are easier to replace or migrate. See http://www.breck-mckye.com/blog/2014/12/the-state-of-javascript-in-2015/ . You need data-binding, you look for a library that does just that. You need client-side templating, you look for a library that offers just that. etc.
Thanks, Marius On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello. > > These articles are interesting and I would love to have Marius' opinion > about it. > > But the most important point to me is that the Angular team is now > re-writing their framework almost from scratch, and breaking > retro-compatibility with the current version of the framework. > > That would be not such a problem if we would be able to directly use the > new version, but it does not support old web browsers that do not > auto-upgrade (e.g. IE 10!), so we are stuck on AngularJs 1.x. > > This is a serious issue since we love using technologies on the long term! > > Guillaume > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
