This article could be right; I don't know the domain enough to say. And it did clarify for me why some people find Angular so contentious: different tribes. But at a number of points where I was expecting explanation, I got bare assertions.
For example, "These languages have their place in the web development stack — but on the server, not in the browser." Why's that? Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing languages that pay little attention to the divide, so that you can easily move code from one execution context to another as needed.
Or the already noted bit about client-side vs server-side rendering.
Or "Google aims to conquer the enterprise market, and Angular is one of its tools." Do they? I live in San Francisco and know a bunch of people who work at Google, and I have never heard the notion that they are aiming to own a lot of enterprise-developer mindshare. I'm certainly having trouble seeing how increased Angular usage leads to some billion-dollar revenue stream.
Or this, criticizing Angular's origin as a prototyping too: "I don’t think that a rapid-prototyping framework should be used for complex, enterprise-level production code." This from a guy whose favorite language was created for some light mouseover animation and form validation? You could say that Rails fits his description precisely, and it seems to be doing ok in the enterprise.
So I wish this had had more meat. As it is, it seems more like a dressed-up version of "Angular does not match my tastes," than the serious examination it wants to be.
Also, fussy language note: please nobody ever say "pulled straight from the horse's mouth". If you're going to use a metaphor, use it fully and well. Pulling something from a horse's mouth is going to be a disgusting and possibly dangerous operation. One hears something straight from the horse's mouth.
For example, "These languages have their place in the web development stack — but on the server, not in the browser." Why's that? Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing languages that pay little attention to the divide, so that you can easily move code from one execution context to another as needed.
Or the already noted bit about client-side vs server-side rendering.
Or "Google aims to conquer the enterprise market, and Angular is one of its tools." Do they? I live in San Francisco and know a bunch of people who work at Google, and I have never heard the notion that they are aiming to own a lot of enterprise-developer mindshare. I'm certainly having trouble seeing how increased Angular usage leads to some billion-dollar revenue stream.
Or this, criticizing Angular's origin as a prototyping too: "I don’t think that a rapid-prototyping framework should be used for complex, enterprise-level production code." This from a guy whose favorite language was created for some light mouseover animation and form validation? You could say that Rails fits his description precisely, and it seems to be doing ok in the enterprise.
So I wish this had had more meat. As it is, it seems more like a dressed-up version of "Angular does not match my tastes," than the serious examination it wants to be.
Also, fussy language note: please nobody ever say "pulled straight from the horse's mouth". If you're going to use a metaphor, use it fully and well. Pulling something from a horse's mouth is going to be a disgusting and possibly dangerous operation. One hears something straight from the horse's mouth.