Will my Angular 2 App go LIVE with Angular 2 Prod build after 5-6 months ? or with just some RC builds ?

Hi.,

Can I use Angular 2 for my web application, which I am starting from the scratch and needs to go LIVE in next 4 - 5 months (6 months max) ?

I need to give a tech proposal to my heads, about my framework selection, etc., I know its in Release Candidate-3 right now.

Any info / rumor among the Angular 2 internal team guys / contributing community on the when-abouts of the production release ? Any approximate timelines ?
Will there be more RC builds ?
Can I kick start my project with RC-3 itself and start building things with that, hoping that my app will go LIVE with Angular 2 Prod (and not with just RCx build itself - not advisable, not intended as well) , after 5-6 months ?

Appreciate your help in advance.

I currently have to work on a small project (1 or 2 month) with node.js/socket.io and a backoffice . I tried angular2 and after various issue (changes between rc1 and rc5, rc5 and rc6, outdated tutorials everywhere...) I moved to aurelia. If anything is done until the official release a lot of developer will move to other solution. angular1 was not easy but angular2 is more even more complicated. for absolutly no reason. IMO It s the perfect definition of "OVERENGINEERING" . after a few days (when rc6 was released and I realize I have to write the same code again because a lot of things where broken) , I decided to move the aurelia.io and I guess I will not regret it :)

Try Aurelia http://aurelia.io

I need to think where to click on Aurelia's website to find documentation.

Their docs (written on Aurelia ofc) are loading slower then typical such web page should.

Their marketing is bad, I can't find MVP on main page fast - what problems it solves, what are use cases, why we should use Aurelia and not something else.

As an architect I am also missing some words about the architecture. Looks like it is MVC, however, by looking on the router example - one of the most weird router syntaxes I've seen.

Uses ES6 classes - the most discussable feature which, actually, on the one hand doesn't solve any problem, on the other hand - made prototypes in JS a bit more confusing. You really can use just object literals and composition without any prototypes, classes and "new".

If you are building web sites which uses HTTP(S) then use it in standard way. It always will be the fastest way. Server receives one request and sends back to user absolutely everything minimum user will need for entire page and even a bit further. That is an architecture of simple HTTP and web and it always was since Tim invented www and HTTP. All those useless "frameworks" make it actually slower. With HTTP2 they also can't use the most powerful feature of HTTP2 - perfomance. Want to build complicated stuff use C++ or something if you don't want to follow HTTP structure, philosophy and web standards, you can invent another protocol, another browser, better JavaScript and propose your own web standards. But I will tell you that you will fail because simplicity of HTTP (now HTTP2) and how Tim made it is actually the best solution for the online fast content delivery.

However, In comparison to Angular, Aurelia really looks lighter. On the other hand, Aurelia in comparison with vanilla JS and ES6 is the same overhead.

I'm using Angular2 Dart on something that will go live in August. The router will still be changing in the next release, otherwise things are getting fairly stable.

Please stop using this cancer of the modern web. Angular 2 is even bigger then 1. 200kb gzip for I dont know what. Business code will be much smaller then framework itself, lol.

medium.freecodecamp.com/angular-2-versus-react-th…

Keep everything simple.

Better learn JS/ES6, latest web standards and APIs itself. You can find many routers, templates, components in less then 2kb which you can really read and understand in few seconds.

Yes, it's huge. But it's so because it's a framework who goes to cover a lot of aspects of implementing a modern SPA. In React, how many modules you do have to bring in and make them coexist in order to achieve the same functionalities? Beware, I'm not saying that the Angular's approach it's better that React's. In fact, as everything in life, there's no universal "best way", it all depends what you need to achieve.

I'm sorry if you got offended about the fanboyism stuff, but believe me, you really sounded like one, just trashing a framework with a 5 lines answer and a link. I'm no Angular fanboy either (even if I worked and I am still working with Angular 1 as of now, and only have a theoretical overview of React), and if you read carefully my previous comment you can easily understand that I didn't even mention Angular, so how can I be defending it? ;)

In the end, I absolutely agree on point 5. That's why I see no sense in defending or attacking one particular technology, and again, I'm not defending or trashing anything here.

And, of course, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your answer.

Rollup, indeed, is a next generation ES6 bundler and does a lot of magic. I am using now it everywhere.

You really don't need to put so much code (at least how Angular provides its architecture) for modern SPAs (which is actually a modern buzzword for DHTML, this technic existed for many years) and you don't need SPAs everywhere like everyone's trying today.

Browser is still browser, mobile network is still same sometimes very slow network, HTTP is still the same HTTP, you don't need to do "back-end engineerig client side". JavaScript was made for scripting browser and it is the simpliest language in the world... well untill back-end developers came to frotnend and started overengineering it trying to simulate classes, interfaces and everything else you really don't need in JS.

For MVC there is very lightweight library http://mithril.js.org/ and a lot of simplier alternatives on GitHub and even 20-line routers.

For template engine, which is 2kb and x100 faster then React - I have found this awesome project http://monkberry.js.org/

There is also my own approach, which is still far away from production release, but you can get main idea from the index page - https://bunnyjs.com

Browser always will be a simple static page, where you need to init some of custom components only when needed. You have a datepicker, you included datepicker - a standalone lightweight library without dependencies, you need a search, dropdown, autocompletes, tab switches, form validation, datatables, ajax (or feth API now), whatever else - again you just include a small package for that. That's why jQuery was so popular and still is - simplicity. With ES6 actually there are so many new web APIs that I can do a lot of things in few lines of vanilla JS.

My favorite comment on the medium article I provided - "Abstraction is great but nothing beats vanilla JS."

Main probolem of front-end today - "The Gorilla and banana problem".

I am also sorry for "funboyism" and you are, of course, right, it always depends on what you need to build.

Try Aurelia http://aurelia.io

Angular 2 is at RC4 with only one RC version currently planed before the official release, as seen from their active milestones, but I haven't heard any information on a official release date yet.

Every new release of Angular introduce some breaking changes - some noticeable, some not, so you should keep an eye on the Angular Changelog every now and then.

The long-term goal for Angular is to make the framework "future-proof" and every update stress-free. There are some plans for upgrade scripts to make this happen (Angular 1 to Angular 2 Upgrade Strategy and Upgrading from 1.X for more detailed information).

I've seen several production ready Angular 2 apps shipped with very positive feedback from the developers. The latest releases are stable enough to be used in production, so more and more companies are adopting it for their small to medium projects.

That being said, you should take the cons and pros of using Angular 2 today and consider the tradeoffs - how will this affect your development and productivity and will you be able to deliver the user experience and features on time and with ease.

I won't start an app with Angular 2 until it's officially released but that's just me.

You can start building an app with an RC version and when the official version is out, you can upgrade it BUT, you will have to make some tweaks everywhere in your application and you HAVE TO KNOW what you are doing.

Thread

Will my Angular 2 App go LIVE with Angular 2 Prod build after 5-6 months ? or with just some RC builds ?

Responses(6)

Recent threads

Search Hashnode

Will my Angular 2 App go LIVE with Angular 2 Prod build after 5-6 months ? or with just some RC builds ?

Responses(6)

Recent threads