This is a bit of a rant, but anyway...<p>There are currently two posts on Angular on the front page of HN. Both have quickly devolved into multiple rants decrying "breaking changes", which can be traced back to the initial Angular 2.0 announcement: <a href="http://angularjs.blogspot.com/2014/10/ng-europe-angular-13-and-beyond.html" rel="nofollow">http://angularjs.blogspot.com/2014/10/ng-europe-angular-13-a...</a><p>This really speaks to the importance of communication around these announcements. If you pay attention to what's actually communicated, yes, there will be a migration plan for 1.x apps. Yes, 1.x will be continued to be supported for much longer than the lifetime of most of your little startups - sorry to break it to you. Yes, 2.x is a much-needed step forward for SPA app development. BUT, when Angular 2 was announced, it was announced too early - they shared the fact that breaking changes were coming, and that AT THAT TIME, there wasn't a plan in place for migrating 1.x apps. That poorly phrased communication has since dominated any discussion about Angular 2, very much to the detriment of the project. It's the same thing as the Flickr, Instagram, Facebook, etc TOU changes that caused such a brouhaha in recent years, except that you would think technically-minded developers would be able to parse the actual information.
> Angular 2 is currently in Alpha Preview. We recommend using Angular 1.X for production applications.<p>Not sure how they can "recommend" 1.X when it's completely incompatible with 2.0. Might as well recommend Ember, React, or literally anything else.
Interesting... their language really seems geared towards pitching Angular as a rapid-prototyping tool. They explicitly mention UX designers, but not developers:<p>"Express your ideas with clean, understandable code. Angular is simple to build on, easy to change, and friendly to the way UX designers work. Create a UI that is beautiful by default, with material design and support for web components."
I am confused seeing this - This mentions "ES6, AtScript, and the es6-shim" ... but the other story on HN speaks about "Angular2 in TypeScript" [<a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/b/typescript/archive/2015/03/05/angular-2-0-built-on-typescript.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/b/typescript/archive/2015/03/05/angula...</a>]<p>What am I missing here?
White text on white background image ? Look how this renders on 1920x1080 resolution <a href="http://i.imgur.com/sPWpL6C.png" rel="nofollow">http://i.imgur.com/sPWpL6C.png</a>. I cannot read that text, I don't understand anything from it.
Wait, what? This is AngularJS? I'm a SysAdmin / DevOps guy that has recently taken up Web Development, spending the last year or so getting neck deep in AngularJS.<p>This looks and feels entirely different, and I don't care to start from scratch.
Interesting to see here that the docs still refer to AtScript, where there's an announcement from Microsoft on the homepage explaining that Angular2.0 will use Typescript.
their about page is broken, cutting off text of the bio at almost all screen sizes.<p>there is a weird "rawgit traffic error" banner across the site.