Echo JS 0.11.0

I'm shaking my head here. You're missing the point.

The article is about non-costructive criticism, towards every software in general, but specifically OSS. There are people that do that on their spare time and don't get a dime for that. They keep on thanks to the moral support and active contribution of the community.

Even if you're somewhat "forced" to use Angular (you can always leave your job for greener pastures anyway - it's not like a good developer usually has a hard time finding a new position), you have to keep in mind that it's a framework that got and still gets a huge amount of work done. You should respect that and the choice of a lot of people that based their work on Angular and, overall, the efforts of all those who contributed.

There are a lot of reasons behind every choice that's ever made, and only because you're not seeing them you shouldn't dismiss them with something like "Pah! It's just MARKETING!"

Yes, Google pushed Angular a lot. But it's not like everything that Google pushed got the same amount of success, like Dart, or Chrome OS, or Google+. It had this success because a giant like Google is *committed* to the project, granting the mid-to-long term support which is needed in the business.

It also had its success because Angular has undeniable advantages, like being a complete framework for web applications, easily allowing things like dependency inversion and unit/e2e testing, and promoting good SOLID concepts.

In the end, ranting and bashing might relieve your spirit for a moment, but it doesn't get your job done and doesn't help solving your problems either. We're lucky enough to have a vast and responsive community around, so we can always rely on it if we pose ouselves in the right way.

I feel the author is missing several points about Angular, and Angular 2 in general.

As a premise, I too feel Angular 2 is somewhat over-engineered, the template syntax is pretty much WTF and it's easily misused. Not to mention the docs are indeed pretty poor.

Other points are quite off, though. Wrapping native APIs is something meant for dependency injection, to make testing your components easier. It's not the result of NIH syndrome.

Moreover, TypeScript isn't supposed to be "safe" in any way. You'd be a fool to think so, since it's a *superset* of JavaScript (i.e., JS compiles as TS just fine). TypeScript is a tool to speed up development and catch the most common pitfalls in coding, especially large codebases.

In short, Angular - especially Angular 2 - isn't a framework for beginners. It requires time, dedication and experience. Just like RxJS and observables (remember they're coming to JavaScript natively sooner or later).

That being said, I feel we're going to abandon frameworks like Angular soon: they feel too much like a kitchen sink for web development. Better starting with a skeleton like React and adding libraries for what you need.
Also Vue is indeed great.

Or, if you just need the methods without a Babel layer, I created a polyfill package a couple of years ago: https://github.com/MaxArt2501/es6-math

What about, you know, Javascript?

I can't even say I'm fluent in English as it's not even my mother language, but if I'm seeking for news in English is because I unederstand them. If this board gets polluted by stuff in other languages, it would get harder for me to find intresting stuff.

And yes, that rule *has* been applied here, and honestly I don't know why this news is still up.

It just doesn't belong here.
It's explicitely stated in the About page: "English content only"

English only, please.

This place is great for JavaScript related news, but why doesn't it work on top of Node.js? That would make everything deliciusly complete...

This has already been posted *and* deleted, it has nothing to do with JavaScrpt. Stop posting it.

"Immediate-execution is a side-effect"

How can a well-defined core behavior be considered a "side effect"?
I might concede that merily passing a function to a constructor isn't usually expected to imply that such function is immediately called (it's also why the "deferred paradigm" is usually preferred), but that's how it is.

Anyway, synchronous code can always be made asynchronous, but not the other way around (unless you're counting await as a way). The main point of promises is their resolution/rejection always happening as the next micro-task, even if they're called synchronously.