9 Jun
2015
9 Jun
'15
10:45 a.m.
Mostly bad. As Guillaume said, the fact that they have chosen to
rewrite completely the framework (revolution vs. evolution) in version
2.0 means there's no point in using Angular 1.3 (a soon to be dead
framework) on new stuff. And we cannot discuss about using Angular 2.0
until we see what it is about and how well it is received, which will
take at least 1 year since it's first release. Moreover, the trend
seems to be to move away from big monolithic JavaScript frameworks
like Angular towards small libraries that perform specific tasks and
are easier to replace or migrate. See
http://www.breck-mckye.com/blog/2014/12/the-state-of-javascript-in-2015/
. You need data-binding, you look for a library that does just that.
You need client-side templating, you look for a library that offers
just that. etc.
Thanks,
Marius
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau
<gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
Hello.
These articles are interesting and I would love to have Marius' opinion
about it.
But the most important point to me is that the Angular team is now
re-writing their framework almost from scratch, and breaking
retro-compatibility with the current version of the framework.
That would be not such a problem if we would be able to directly use the
new version, but it does not support old web browsers that do not
auto-upgrade (e.g. IE 10!), so we are stuck on AngularJs 1.x.
This is a serious issue since we love using technologies on the long term!
Guillaume
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs