4 ms·

angular.js -- 2010 - 2016 angular -- 2016 That's an example where, when you jumped on the bandwagon at the height of the hype, you were thrown into a backward

angular.js -- 2010 - 2016 angular -- 2016 That's an example where, when you jumped on the bandwagon at the height of the hype, you were thrown into a backwards incompatible rewrite pretty quickly. And while npm has been around for quite some time, my outsider impression is that was, for some time, basically discouraged from use, because yarn was so much better. Compare that to Ruby on Rails -- 2004, Catalyst (Perl) -- 2005, Django (Python) 2003. Time moves slower in enterprises, with upgrade cycles more on the scale of 3 to 10 years.

hajile 6y ago
Angular 2 shared a name for marketing reasons, but was/is 100% unrelated as every major idea in Angular turned out to be bad. Yarn solved some npm issues they refused to tackle, but npm got motivated and has now solved most of them. Meanwhile, yarn 2's release has been a disaster and has seemingly resulted in most people (myself included) moving back to npm. I've done Rails and Django work. Rails in particular took years to migrate to the next version. I'd add that Rails has seen 6 versions in 16 years which gives around 1 major breaking upgrade every 3 years (in truth, there's been about 1 major change per year as point releases are pretty big). Likewise, wikipedia gives almost 20 major django updates (I haven't used it in several years, but point updates used to have a very big risk of breaking the project I was working on).
- perlgeek 6y ago
  > Angular 2 shared a name for marketing reasons, but was/is 100% unrelated as every major idea in Angular turned out to be bad. Be that as it may, Angular 2 meant nobody was willing to commit to any fixed time span to support Angular.js, so it basically forced everybody to migrate off of Angular.js, introducing the toil and churn we were discussing.