There's many other mistakes, like not having access to component state for custom validators and the infamous change detection errors. Sometimes the error messages border on horrific, reminds me of debugging assembly. Some of these issues don't have any good solutions.
The needless complexity is true. Like every bad framework it makes easy things difficult while at the same time piling on "magic" that's often not useful.
The author is dead wrong on Typescript. Typescript is the best tool I've added to my web development stack in years. Shortly followed by tslint. Once you get used to it the type inference is so good that you only need to even specify the type maybe 1/5 the time.
Vue, on the other hand, has adopted many of the best features of React and responded well to user feedback. I think it's a strong competitor and I can totally understand someone picking Vue over React. I cannot say the same for NG2.
Form validation is a long-solved problem and doing custom validation is a huge pain. Accessing the raw DOM sets off warning bells but in Angular2 it needs to be done for simple things like form field focus. You need to implement FieldValueAccessor for custom fields and the documentation for that sucks.
There's two different form libraries that are largely incompatible. Underneath that several ways to instantiate and manipulate both types of forms. It's so hard to build practical components that Angular2 Material still isn't finished.
If my company wasn't using ng2 extensively I would jump ship for react asap
But yeah, they're trying to be productive in the short term, so it's probably not worth overanalyzing whether a distaste of static typing isn't emblematic of other issues. Getting things rolling has a higher priority...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setun
Knuth has also hypothesized that we may one day start producing ternary computers again due to their efficiency and elegance.
Sure, you shouldn't use them unless you really have to, but "really have to" is a line that is difficult to discern. Dijkstra himself noted, "The exercise to translate an arbitrary flow diagram more or less mechanically into a jump-less one, however, is not to be recommended. Then the resulting flow diagram cannot be expected to be more transparent than the original one."