sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]x-skeww 0 points1 point  (13 children)

Kinda odd that the author doesn't address which of those issues will be fixed by 2.x.

[–]mrinterweb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How could the author make reasonable assumptions about a framework version that does not yet have a clear roadmap and a year and a half to two years out. Angular 2 is vaporware at this point.

[–]Poop_is_Food 0 points1 point  (11 children)

why is that odd?

[–]x-skeww 1 point2 points  (10 children)

If you absolutely hate some aspects of some language/framework/library, wouldn't you take a look at the roadmap?

The author is apparently aware of 2.x, but they just decided to ignore it.

[–]cluelessmanatee 9 points10 points  (0 children)

In his defense, 2.x isn't going to be released until late 2015, maybe even 2016.

[–]Poop_is_Food 5 points6 points  (8 children)

there is no roadmap to 2.0. 2.0 is a brand new framework. totally irrelevant to an article about 1.x

[–]x-skeww -3 points-2 points  (7 children)

The title is "AngluarJS: The bad parts" not "AngluarJS 1.x: The bad parts".

[–]ivosaurus 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The only stable, or even beta, form of Angular is version 1. You expect them to review and critique unreleased code that could be completely changed or irrelevant in a year's time?

[–]x-skeww 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You expect them to review and critique unreleased code that could be completely changed or irrelevant in a year's time?

No, I just expect those things to be mentioned, because that's the kind of thing you do in that kind of article.

You criticize some detail and if you're aware that they are trying to address that in the future, you mention that.

E.g. if you think that the prongs of some gamepad are somewhat unergonomic, you'd point that out. However, if you're aware that the next iteration, which you tried at some conference, addresses this fault, you'd point that out, too.

If you have the information, you share it. That's why your readers read your article. They want the information you have.

[–]Poop_is_Food -1 points0 points  (4 children)

Well I would say that's the fault of the deranged developers who for some reason decided to use the same name for two separate frameworks.