5 ms·

I suspect there's going to be a bit of pushback to this acceleration in numbering.

robwormald 10y ago
Major release every 6 months, 2 major version deprecation policy. There was definitely some initial pushback, but we hope to demonstrate with this release that it's a) not that scary and b) good for both developers and users. Most devs should see significant reduction (upwards of 50%) in their output builds. We think that's a reasonable trade off for a couple hours of work to upgrade. In this release, most developers should be able to simply update their dependencies and rebuild. We're aiming for regular, planned, minimal changes, rather than Big Bang style change from AngularJS -> Angular.
- coding123 10y ago
  I think you're right. Probably something similar to how they changed Java from the 1.x to the 5, 6, 7... series. It did take a couple years for people to stop saying 1.5 though, as I suspect will be the case for people saying "Angular2" trying to find a way to distance themselves from Angular 1 but not really caring if some component was written for 4, 5, etc..
  - robwormald 10y ago
    you'll find that generally, we refer to it as "Angular" or "Angular 4.0" - officially, AngularJS is 1.x. We'll see how it shakes out, but so far our community has been pretty awesome about it.
natoliniak 10y ago
If my experience is any indication of general industry practices, businesses are very risk averse when it comes to upgrading libraries or dependencies as it usually triggers costly regression testing. At my current gig, we still run on angular 1.3.something and there is no way the business will allow us to migrate to v2 as we struggle to justify exactly what added value will we get from essentially a top-down rewrite.
- Touche 10y ago
  > there is no way the business will allow us to migrate to v2 We as engineers should not accept this. Business should not be involved in technical decisions like library upgrades. Business and engineering should negotiation development scheduling, nothing more. This means what new features are worked on, what bugs are prioritized, etc. All remaining time should be up to engineering's discretion. And if business has you working on features full-time, then that's a (really) bad business and you should find a more acceptable company to work for.
  - natoliniak 10y ago
    I dont't disagree with you, but after some years in the industry I noticed certain patterns in how businesses operate: as they get larger and stable they get more risk averse and more in love with legacy systems. But I never worked for Google or the likes, so maybe somewhere out there, the grass is greener :)
  - coding123 10y ago
    I'd have to say I agree with you generally in "library upgrades" but I don't consider AngularJS and Angular "2+" as the same library.
  - tomc1985 10y ago
    Except when said library upgrades send costs spiraling out of control, because the refactor took 3x longer than anticipated...
- tiengtinh 10y ago
  similar to your case, our product was also built on angular 1.x. However, we (and the product as well) have had a better fate in which we successfully convince the big guy to use React for any new feature that we want to build or code we need to fix. Now, we are having more and more react components, and lesser angular 1 code every day.
Matthias247 10y ago
All hiring posts that are looking for "Angular 2" developers are now outdated and have to be switched to Angular 4 :) And recruiters will probably not understand that the difference between ng2 and ng4 is minor, while the difference between ng1 and ng2 is night and day.
- timdavila 10y ago
  I can see it now Required: 3+ years experience building Angular 4 apps
  - usrusr 10y ago
    And the person who eventually gets hired points out that this is impossible, he could not possibly have made more than the two years he has on Angular 3. And he must be really ahead of the curve, all the other losers who applied barely got that much on 2...

Major release every 6 months, 2 major version deprecation policy. There was definitely some initial pushback, but we hope to demonstrate with this release that it's a) not that scary and b) good for both developers and users. Most devs should see significant reduction (upwards of 50%) in their output builds. We think that's a reasonable trade off for a couple hours of work to upgrade. In this release, most developers should be able to simply update their dependencies and rebuild. We're aiming for regular, planned, minimal changes, rather than Big Bang style change from AngularJS -> Angular.

coding123 10y ago
I think you're right. Probably something similar to how they changed Java from the 1.x to the 5, 6, 7... series. It did take a couple years for people to stop saying 1.5 though, as I suspect will be the case for people saying "Angular2" trying to find a way to distance themselves from Angular 1 but not really caring if some component was written for 4, 5, etc..
- robwormald 10y ago
  you'll find that generally, we refer to it as "Angular" or "Angular 4.0" - officially, AngularJS is 1.x. We'll see how it shakes out, but so far our community has been pretty awesome about it.

natoliniak 10y ago

If my experience is any indication of general industry practices, businesses are very risk averse when it comes to upgrading libraries or dependencies as it usually triggers costly regression testing. At my current gig, we still run on angular 1.3.something and there is no way the business will allow us to migrate to v2 as we struggle to justify exactly what added value will we get from essentially a top-down rewrite.

Touche 10y ago
> there is no way the business will allow us to migrate to v2 We as engineers should not accept this. Business should not be involved in technical decisions like library upgrades. Business and engineering should negotiation development scheduling, nothing more. This means what new features are worked on, what bugs are prioritized, etc. All remaining time should be up to engineering's discretion. And if business has you working on features full-time, then that's a (really) bad business and you should find a more acceptable company to work for.
- natoliniak 10y ago
  I dont't disagree with you, but after some years in the industry I noticed certain patterns in how businesses operate: as they get larger and stable they get more risk averse and more in love with legacy systems. But I never worked for Google or the likes, so maybe somewhere out there, the grass is greener :)
- coding123 10y ago
  I'd have to say I agree with you generally in "library upgrades" but I don't consider AngularJS and Angular "2+" as the same library.
- tomc1985 10y ago
  Except when said library upgrades send costs spiraling out of control, because the refactor took 3x longer than anticipated...
tiengtinh 10y ago
similar to your case, our product was also built on angular 1.x. However, we (and the product as well) have had a better fate in which we successfully convince the big guy to use React for any new feature that we want to build or code we need to fix. Now, we are having more and more react components, and lesser angular 1 code every day.

Matthias247 10y ago

All hiring posts that are looking for "Angular 2" developers are now outdated and have to be switched to Angular 4 :) And recruiters will probably not understand that the difference between ng2 and ng4 is minor, while the difference between ng1 and ng2 is night and day.

timdavila 10y ago
I can see it now Required: 3+ years experience building Angular 4 apps
- usrusr 10y ago
  And the person who eventually gets hired points out that this is impossible, he could not possibly have made more than the two years he has on Angular 3. And he must be really ahead of the curve, all the other losers who applied barely got that much on 2...