>>I am not saying that Angular 2.0 is going to be a bad framework. What I am saying is that it is no longer fundamentally the same thing I was originally hired

>>I am not saying that Angular 2.0 is going to be a bad framework. What I am saying is that it is no longer fundamentally the same thing I was originally hired to help build nor is it compatible with my vision for the future. From what I understand, Angular 2.0 is radically different from 1.x because the team believes the future direction of javascript development will overwhelmingly be "web components" (like Polymer). Therefore, they redesigned the API with that in mind and previous concepts such as $scope,etc can be obsoleted. Unfortunately, Eisenberg's post was vague and it would have been helpful if he inserted a few examples of concrete code snippets to illustrate what he fundamentally disagrees with. If he can explain concrete decisions around syntax, semantics, etc, that would be educational for everyone. I searched around and found that he previously[1] mentioned a future roadmap with web components in "Durandal 3.0" so I can't tell if he currently disagrees with web components as a concept or as a timeframe of implementation. [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/durandaljs/sO3ghjtfrEo/a4S7Bo6KAHAJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/durandaljs/sO3ghjtfrEo/a4S7B...