5 ms·

And 11 days later... > Several months ago the general direction of Angular 2.0 began to change in critical ways. I found myself fundamentally at odds with cert

by _mtr 12y ago

And 11 days later... > Several months ago the general direction of Angular 2.0 began to change in critical ways. I found myself fundamentally at odds with certain aspects of the proposed design. Still, I tried to keep an open mind and explore the various possibilities. Unfortunately, I haven't been satisfied with how things have progressed since then. At this point, there are too many irreconcilable differences. The Angular that's being built is not the Angular I signed up to work on http://eisenbergeffect.bluespire.com/leaving-angular http://eisenbergeffect.bluespire.com/leaving-angular

kofalt 12y ago
Yikes. > 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. I've heard elsewhere that 2.0 will be an entirely unrelated framework which will be still called Angular for no good reason. Dismissing this opinion as a troll is no longer productive after the above commentary by an Angular developer.
- cheriot 12y ago
  In that Angular 1.x has been iterative changes and 2.0 is a completely new architecture and code base, it's not a rumor. The angular team has been saying that since the original announcement.
- justinzollars 12y ago
  he should create a fork
  - Kiro 12y ago
    He has Durandal. http://durandaljs.com/ http://durandaljs.com/
cheriot 12y ago
Keep in mind this guy's reasons for leaving. He's focused on his own vision for his own framework (Durandaljs).
- ep103 12y ago
  Any time I've ever left a job because of a project, all that time spent working on a broken product has left me with tons of time to figure out how I would do it on my own.
  - cheriot 12y ago
    The guy's framework existed before he joined Angular, he announced that they were merging, and then he changed his mind. Your analogy doesn't quite fit. I'm skeptical of several things, but so far trusting that team has gone well for me.
dang 12y ago
Discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8619789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8619789.
serve_yay 12y ago
See, I find this reaction to Angular understandable, but in some ways it should apply more towards the current version than the upcoming one. I think people should be unhappier with the pile of junk that they currently have to deal with, than the fact that a bunch of it is going to change or go away. It looks like the new version does away with some unnecessary concepts (Angular itself has way too many concepts to deal with IMO) and adopts upcoming standards like module syntax. (The AtScript stuff does seem like sort of a nightmare, though apparently only contributors need to worry about it.) I hated the time I spent with Angular 1.x and the whole thing strikes me a as a complex and painful way to build applications. But the new stuff seems like a slight course-correction if you want to build apps in that way.
- marknutter 12y ago
  > I hated the time I spent with Angular 1.x and the whole thing strikes me a as a complex and painful way to build applications. This comment baffles me. Not your cup of tea, sure, that I can understand, but complex and painful? Angular, Ember, Backbone, React, etc. are all so vastly superior to hacking together jQuery spaghetti code with imperative DOM manipulation I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be elated with the productivity gains they get from any of the modern frameworks, regardless of their syntax preferences.
  - serve_yay 12y ago
    Who said anything about jQuery or Backbone? About the complexity part, I am referring to the number of concepts one must be familiar with in order to produce a working Angular app. I mean read TFA: part of it breaks down the three varieties of directives you need to know in order to do a thing. And it's all like this, just a constant array of made-up concepts you have to digest in order to make something happen in the DOM. It's such a pain in the butt, and you constantly keep running into it -- whenever you need to output a URL to the view, you get to go hunting for the docs for $sce and figure out your exact use case just so you can spit out the damn URL.
    - marknutter 12y ago

by _mtr 12y ago

kofalt 12y ago

Yikes. > 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. I've heard elsewhere that 2.0 will be an entirely unrelated framework which will be still called Angular for no good reason. Dismissing this opinion as a troll is no longer productive after the above commentary by an Angular developer.

cheriot 12y ago
In that Angular 1.x has been iterative changes and 2.0 is a completely new architecture and code base, it's not a rumor. The angular team has been saying that since the original announcement.
justinzollars 12y ago
he should create a fork
- Kiro 12y ago
  He has Durandal. http://durandaljs.com/ http://durandaljs.com/

cheriot 12y ago

Keep in mind this guy's reasons for leaving. He's focused on his own vision for his own framework (Durandaljs).

ep103 12y ago
Any time I've ever left a job because of a project, all that time spent working on a broken product has left me with tons of time to figure out how I would do it on my own.
- cheriot 12y ago
  The guy's framework existed before he joined Angular, he announced that they were merging, and then he changed his mind. Your analogy doesn't quite fit. I'm skeptical of several things, but so far trusting that team has gone well for me.

dang 12y ago

Discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8619789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8619789.

serve_yay 12y ago

See, I find this reaction to Angular understandable, but in some ways it should apply more towards the current version than the upcoming one. I think people should be unhappier with the pile of junk that they currently have to deal with, than the fact that a bunch of it is going to change or go away. It looks like the new version does away with some unnecessary concepts (Angular itself has way too many concepts to deal with IMO) and adopts upcoming standards like module syntax. (The AtScript stuff does seem like sort of a nightmare, though apparently only contributors need to worry about it.) I hated the time I spent with Angular 1.x and the whole thing strikes me a as a complex and painful way to build applications. But the new stuff seems like a slight course-correction if you want to build apps in that way.

marknutter 12y ago
> I hated the time I spent with Angular 1.x and the whole thing strikes me a as a complex and painful way to build applications. This comment baffles me. Not your cup of tea, sure, that I can understand, but complex and painful? Angular, Ember, Backbone, React, etc. are all so vastly superior to hacking together jQuery spaghetti code with imperative DOM manipulation I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be elated with the productivity gains they get from any of the modern frameworks, regardless of their syntax preferences.
- serve_yay 12y ago
  Who said anything about jQuery or Backbone? About the complexity part, I am referring to the number of concepts one must be familiar with in order to produce a working Angular app. I mean read TFA: part of it breaks down the three varieties of directives you need to know in order to do a thing. And it's all like this, just a constant array of made-up concepts you have to digest in order to make something happen in the DOM. It's such a pain in the butt, and you constantly keep running into it -- whenever you need to output a URL to the view, you get to go hunting for the docs for $sce and figure out your exact use case just so you can spit out the damn URL.
  - marknutter 12y ago