Echo JS 0.11.0

Angular 3?

Angular 4.
http://angularjs.blogspot.com/2016/12/ok-let-me-explain-its-going-to-be.html

Better make that title "Angular 4".

http://angularjs.blogspot.com/2016/12/ok-let-me-explain-its-going-to-be.html

Angular 2+ is brilliant software by brilliant people. Except that the development experience might be terrible (for some, for a period of time, etc.) And it shouldn't be called "Angular".

No mention of Vue.js? 
For the Angular 1 developers who feel abandoned by Angular 2, Vue.js may look more developer-friendly than React.
And then even ignoring that aspect, the Vue.js project seems to be gaining a lot more momentum in the community.

<speculation> Angular 1, while having its fair share of oddities and complexities and frustrations, is able to provide a measure of fun in how you work with the web. Without much ceremony and overhead, you can make something cool in relatively short time.

The reaction to Angular 2 within the development community has been more mixed than the reaction to Angular 1. Maybe this is because Angular 2 takes a lot of the fun out of web development. The concept count is way higher, the template syntax looks nasty compared to Angular 1, the project now seems to cater to architecture astronauts, etc.

Combine this with how parts of the tech ed community have a vested interest in making it seem you need to use Angular 2 (maybe they have a fee-based course or are promoting one thing or another). Yet what is the sweet spot for Angular 2? Does everything you do on the web now have to be in Angular 2? Do even most line-of-business projects have to be in Angular 2? You won't find as much discussion along these lines.

So maybe when an inflammatory headline like "Angular 2 is terrible" comes along, there are many who may have a lot of sympathy with that viewpoint, regardless of the merits of the content below the headline. 
</speculation>.