4 ms·
Interesting article, but weird that it basically ignores Angular2+, it's only mentioned once: > and rewriting them entirely, like Angular did with Angular 2, k
by jmkni 5y ago
Interesting article, but weird that it basically ignores Angular2+, it's only mentioned once:
> and rewriting them entirely, like Angular did with Angular 2, killed a ton of their community’s momentum.
I don't think this is accurate, Angular may not be as popular amongst SV startups, but is still alive and well in more established businesses/enterprise.
I don't think it's fair to write about the history of Javascript frameworks and completely gloss over one of the most widely used.
- outsidetheparty 5y agoIt’s absolutely accurate; I made a pretty good living for a while there helping companies transition away from Angular after the framework got rewritten out from under them. Original Angular had some performance flaws that probably really did require a rewrite, but the decision to change so much syntax while they were at it caused an enormous number of people to abandon the platform. Current Angular still exists, sure, just like Ruby on Rails still exists, and they’re both solid and useful platforms; but industry wide it’s still accurate to think of them mostly in historical terms.
- jmkni 5y agoMaybe this is different based on where you are, I'm in the UK and get emailed about different Angular contracts every few days, it's in use everywhere here.
- DrFell 5y agoShh! Us Angular devs are working in obscurity on purpose. Have you seen the misinformation and library bloat that comes with popularity? Nothing to see here, go back to your React, kids.