Slashdot Mirror
Google's New Angular 2.0 Isn't Compatible With Angular 1 (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes TechCrunch:
When Google announced Angular 2 in 2014, it created quite a stir in the web development community because this new version wasn't just an update, but instead a complete rewrite that wasn't compatible with the older version... "Angular 1 first solved the problem of how to develop for an emerging web," the company writes... "Six years later, the challenges faced by today's application developers, and the sophistication of the devices that applications must support, have both changed immensely."
Announcing the final release version of Angular 2 last week, Google thanked the open source community, saying "We are grateful to the large number of contributors who dedicated time to submitting pull requests, issues, and repro cases, who discussed and debated design decisions, and validated (and pushed back on) our RCs." TechCrunch writes that Google's Angular team "now also recommends that developers use TypeScript to write their apps...a Microsoft-developed superset of JavaScript that adds features like static typing and class-based object-oriented programming."
Announcing the final release version of Angular 2 last week, Google thanked the open source community, saying "We are grateful to the large number of contributors who dedicated time to submitting pull requests, issues, and repro cases, who discussed and debated design decisions, and validated (and pushed back on) our RCs." TechCrunch writes that Google's Angular team "now also recommends that developers use TypeScript to write their apps...a Microsoft-developed superset of JavaScript that adds features like static typing and class-based object-oriented programming."
That's because it's a complete rewrite, and anyone who has been around for the last year who develops Angular already knew this.
When Google announced Angular 2 in 2014, it created quite a stir in the web development community because this new version wasn't just an update, but instead a complete rewrite that wasn't compatible with the older version
Such a stir that it was noticed by Slashdot in 2016
Anyone can have 50 versions, but let's see if Apple and Google can get 50 versions that are incompatible with the previous one and still have anyone want to use it.
Where can I download this "progressive enhancement" framework that you speak of?
.. are partly the constantly mutating APIs! Irony, much??
Your decision making process would be better if your opinions had a better factual basis. On the other hand, this is Slashdot and facts don't count for much around here. You fit right in.
Why is Snark Required?
I think you have to start by running
npm install knowledge skill wisdom
They have a common dependency on experience, so it can be a bit time-consuming to get them all, maybe a few years. Also, depending on your environment, some of them may fail to install.
The good news is that you've got them, it's very quick to set up other useful things like stability, future-proofing, and even progressive-enhancement, with minimal dependencies on other JS packages.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's an overly rosy picture of Python 3. Install most linux distros and run 'python'. Odds are overwhelming that it will be python 2.
There are plenty of modules that *still* are python 2 only. Most are developed to work with both python 2 and 3. Very very few are python 3 only.
Now it's not as bad as angular 1 -> 2, it's *generally* not too terrible to accomodate both python 2 and 3 in the same codebase. You only get to pulling your hair out if you do a lot with binary data, and even then it's not too terrible. Python 3 could have done some other nice things, like recognizing xrange as an alternative name for range, viewitems as a name for items, and other similar things that would make it much easier to go to python three without either doing your own interop or using six all the time. On the flip side, when dealing with a framework like angular, you are *generally* less worried about end-users (you provide the entire runtime) versus something like python, where the non-developer users bring their version of the interpreter to your code.
There's another headache when it comes to living in python 2 world. They decided 2.7 was going to be the last, end of story. As a consequence, 'minor' 2.7 updates are now introducing featurues causing the same sort of compatibility caveats that you historically only saw on 2.5->2.6 type updates.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Angular 1 first solved the problem of how to develop for an emerging web,"
*What* "emerging web"? The web has been around for decades now. The only thing that's changed is the fact that there are now even more unnecessary layers of javascript on top of everything than there was before.
"Six years later, the challenges faced by today's application developers, and the sophistication of the devices that applications must support, have both changed immensely."
Yeah, because asshats like you keep reinventing the wheel and forcing everyone to relearn what they already knew, throwing away hard won lessons in the process, and resulting in poorer quality code overall because no particular language or API seems to last long enough anymore for people to become proficient enough in it to deal with all the inevitable bugs.
Why even call it Angular if it's completely incompatible with the previous version?
| A fundamental difference between regular business people, and computery people. They don't want to rework everything, and we'll rework everything because of because.
They don't want to rework everything (in the technology), because their career success depends on advancing the business. In the areas that they work on and are part of their career evaluation, there is plenty of churn in initiatives, reorganizations, and management styles and 'paradigms'.
The technologists have the same problem doing excessive reworking and rewriting their frameworks and 'paradigms' and deployment platforms etc for their own career desires, and have the same opinion of useless management fad changes as the business has with technology fad changes.