Hacker News Reader

Comment by robwormald | Hacker News Reader

Angular core team member here, happy to answer questions

Since Angular 2 is so different from Angular 1 and there is not a universal solution to upgrade from 1 to 2, do you think there would have been a better PR/current user reaction if it was named something else?

i like Max Lynch's (of Ionic framework) take on this http://blog.ionic.io/angular-is-a-design-pattern/

I hear a lot about angular and that it has gotten quite a competition from react, aurelia and vue.

I personally will never use react. but i want to know, in which situations, it would be better to use angular and in which situations it would be better to use aurelia or vue.

This really comes down to your team - try them out and see what feels good for you. React is a great library, and as an angular1 dev before joining the core team, I learned a TON from playing with React and especially Dan Abramov and Redux - most of the same patterns are immediately portable to angular2.

Since angular 2 is very new (not even released) it's hard to have any experience from real projects. I have used both angular 1 and react for over a year each and I don't really see any projects where I would choose angular 1 over react except if that is what the team knows.

One thing that interests me about Angular 2 a bit more than React is the web components support.

With web components finally going native (surprisingly, led by Safari!), will Angular 2 see any big speedups, and will the size of the hello world app come down (200k is kind of huge)?

Also, I've seen a few tutorials on using Angular 2 with Polymer, but it seems complex. Is Google working on making these work together better? Will I be able to create Angular 2 web components and use them with Polymer web components?

I can't answer your other questions competently, but at ng-conf today, in the keynote [1], they announced improvements that drop Angular2 down smaller than 1.x, and that they have plans to continue

[1] 9:02 mark in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdlpE9vPQFs&t=9m2s

I love Angular 1.

When I looked at the Angular 2 beta a couple of months ago, you needed to add es6 shim, angular 2 polyfills, systemjs and rxjs as well as Angular 2, just to get up and running and have a basic Hello World.

Contrast this to Angular 1, where the library on it's own with no dependencies will suffice.

Is this still the case? Are there plans to package Angular2 as a single minified GZipped library?

Thanks

Are you going to maintain Angular 1.x for the years to come? Because Angular 2.x is a completely different framework and upgrading doesn't make much sense to me.

Why is everything packaged separately now? Also, any ETA on 1.0?

couple of reasons. one big one is flexibility. angular2 (er, @angular) runs on client, server, native (react native/nativescript) and we hope many other platforms in the future. this lets us packages for common dependencies for various platforms, as well as enabling us to not ship the template compiler for precompiled apps.

the other is providing a single entry point to each of those packages, which makes it easy to configure for rollup/webpack2 etc when you want to use the ES6 source over the CJS.

re 1.0, when it's done :D

err... 2.0

Great work! Like it a lot - especially with Dart ;-)

Do you know when we'll have docs on the new Router?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com