Echo JS 0.11.0

?? Where did versions 2.1.0-2.1.3 go?
Just never tagged?

I agree, that confused me quite a bit when I first read the title.

A reminder of a lesser known event, but that was painful to read. Not only the English is broken, the punctuation is too.

A motivatonal post, but not directly related to JavaScript, I'm afraid.

You can pass a DOM element instead of a selector there. It's just like ReactDOM.render, only you can pass a selector too.

Plus you can pass a template property too so it won't use the element's content as a template.
Moreover, with Vue you can create .vue files that merge together the code, the template and the style of a single component. As a plus, you can use transpilers and compilers for all (Babel, Pug, Sass... you name it).

Finally you can even use JSX with Vue so you actually have maximum flexibility here.

English only, pal.

Yes, that is a thing, although many didn't know it because most of ES2015 code - let alone ES2015 - gets transpiled.
Honestly I'd have preferred to trigger strict mode as soon as non-simple parameters get parsed.
You want to use default arguments, argument destructuring, spread operators? Fine, but you'll be in strict mode.

But I guess keeping the "use strict" directive mandatory for strict mode make things clearer... But the workaround is messy, sadly.

I actually had plenty of experience with that type of clients, sadly. I've never gone back to IE6 fortunately, but I have with IE7, and that felt terribly outdated right back then.
Oh, sure, Microsoft was still releasing security patches. They could hide behind that. But now it doesn't, and keeping your software outdated, in the bliss of a false sense of security, is plain stupid.
The point is: stop working for them. You already know that you're not going to get anything good from such clients, and you'll find yourself regretting of not having asked for more money.

My point still stands. The problem is with commissioners who don't understand that keeping your software outdated leads only to sub-optimal experience and/or extended development times.
Installing Chrome or Firefox beside IE6 (if they *really* want to use some legacy ActiveX web app) is free, feasible, fast and just a one-time investment for the administrators.
This is why we, as developers, should try to convince them.

"The two latter work with IE6+, which is a big advantage nowadays."

This is why we can't have nice things.

If you're to develop a web application for the modern world, let the users get a browser worth of a web application. Still giving support to IE6 in 2016 is what kept web development back for so long.