[danielpatrick]

Angular 2 is a different framework, plain and simple. You can continue to use AngularJS 1.x if you were on that framework.

I understand the frustration of someone who has used AngularJS 1.x. There is not really a straightforward and low risk path to upgrading a production app.

But that is like saying there is not really a straightforward risk to switching from AngularJS 1.x to React. They're different frameworks. AngularJS is different from Angular.

In my opinion the Angular team has created something really special with this new framework. I think it falls into a category of its own, very difficult to compare it to something like Vue.

[wyldfire]

> Angular 2 is a different framework, plain and simple.

I wonder if, strategically, it would have been a better idea to give it a new name rather than a subsequent version number?

[droidist2]

I always figured it was to give the illusion of stability and continuity (ironically). Like "Angular has been out since 2010, before React and Ember" especially since a common criticism of Google is that they frequently abandon their projects.

[nkkollaw]

This is ridiculous.

Give it another name, then.

You can't get people to adopt your framework, stop developing it leaving millions of projects in shit, and then expect people to do it all over again.

I'm glad that Google paid this strategic error dearly, having a huge percentage of people switching to React. Perhaps next time they'll think about it more deeply.

[gmiller123456]

> Angular 2 is a different framework, plain and simple.

Yes. Retaining the Angular name is just a way to slightly disguise that they've dropped a framework altogether and left its user high and dry.