My thoughts on 2.0 so far - most of 2.0 seems pretty good. I can deal with AtScript, since it seems like we are forced into transpiling from ES6 to ES5 anyway.

My thoughts on 2.0 so far - most of 2.0 seems pretty good. I can deal with AtScript, since it seems like we are forced into transpiling from ES6 to ES5 anyway. It is dirty that this means we don't quite have clean standalone JS libraries that is as easy to use as an ES6 import. The gains of DI with something like di.js instead of repetitious annoying conventions that pollutes code design is worth it I think. The one thing I don't like is the new HTML templating. I want valid HTML - the one thing that gave Angular a leg up over other frameworks in my eyes is that the templates were purely HTML. If I wanted to migrate to another framework, it would be much easier to do so from Angular since the templates were pure HTML, so the CSS would still be valid. It seems like we are forced into a sort of templating system similar to JSX (note: this is a guess on my part - I know the Angular team admires React for the performance of the virtual DOM). This type of complexity makes it harder for newer developers to get into frontend application development, and it makes me concerned from a management standpoint. I think the main complaint in the article about enterprise support is bleh though. Very few frontend developers want to support enterprise these days due to how fast the frontend world is evolving. Due to this fast pace, it's important to modernize until the ecosystem is as mature as it needs to be. The complaint seems to ring hollow since it seems that the author doesn't want to have to devote the amount of resources as it takes to develop web applications. More of the complexity has shifted to the frontend, and so it takes more on the frontend to meet the same expectations (and less on the backend, or focused on more high level tasks)