5 ms·
"We invested in a beta product and then shock horror - it changes before it's released. Let's blame the framework on that poor choice." "We were unable to lea
by jinder 9y ago
"We invested in a beta product and then shock horror - it changes before it's released. Let's blame the framework on that poor choice."
"We were unable to learn how to use TypeScript properly, so let's abandon gradual typing and suffer a net loss in productivity over the longer term."
- emodendroket 9y agoThe stuff about a total rewrite to go to regular JavaScript is completely bogus as well. How does this guy think Typescript runs?
- camus2 9y ago> "We invested in a beta product and then shock horror - it changes before it's released. Let's blame the framework on that poor choice." Angular.2 has been in beta for years. And when it went out of beta it basically became something else. This is not a good thing. It's normal for teams to be excepting at least some level of stability in the library they are using. And now that Angular.X pretends to be using semver, it's going to be even worse. The Angular team doesn't care about stability or lacked vision when they started 2, but a stable API is a valid expectation for a developer team. But it's not surprising as frameworks with huge API surfaces like ExtJS have pulled the same trick for years, with the same results. Their downfall is more the consequence of API breaking than anything else.
- jinder 9y agoIf you rely on a beta product you should have no expectation of API stability. It's very easy to blame vendors when it's your own poor decision making that got you in the mess to begin with.
- camus2 9y ago> If you rely on a beta product you should have no expectation of API stability. If i rely on a beta product, i don't expect a complete rewrite of the API when a stable version is released. That's exactly what happened, several times with Angular. Now you can't have it both ways as a vendor. You can't expect people to try out your product and test it in a professional setting then change everything at the last moment either. Or you're saying developers shouldn't even checkout Angular until it is out of beta. If that's what you're saying then the vendor shouldn't expect broad adoption.
- thehardsphere 9y agoI don't know what he's saying, but I would say that you should not have your product depend on something that is subject to change. Thus, although the vendor can do wrong by changing their product API when it is in Beta, it's still ultimately your fault for relying on something that hasn't had a stable release. Although I get what people are saying about Beta products, the truth is that different vendors use the term "Beta" with different levels of precision, and thus should not typically be trusted not to pull the rug out from under you in some way if they haven't firmly committed to stability.
- scriptproof 9y agoI have used Google's beta products for years (Gmail for example). You remark is valid for an alpha version, but a beta version should be the final product with maybe bugs to be fixed.
- w4tson 9y agoNo idea why that comment is getting down voted. Beta can mean different things to different people. We all know google put gmail into beta for years, it was solid for years. That's one example of a product in beta. But seriously, take a bet on a hip framework and it comes good (like react), good for you . But you can't cry when frameworks change API wildly when they clearly have a beta label on them.
- pas 9y agoExpecting a stable API in a so complex space, with so much untested assumptions, so much "research" (or experimenting), is .. wishful thinking. Yes, using a small lib will get you initially there, but then there will be a full rewrite of that too, or it'll become completely abandoned, etc. Angular at least has some idea of upgrade path.
- AlfeG 9y agoWe actually implemented quite a big project with Vue/Typescript. Half year later we removed all ts code in favor of plan js.