The async pipe to do asynchronous binding is pretty sweet. I think (if I remember correctly) they tried to do something like this by default in Angular 1 (i.e. wait until promises resolve and then display the result), but then they took it out because it was causing other issues. If you did want all your bindings to by async in Angular 2, though, I wonder if there is a way to set a global configuration option or something. That way you don't need to include the | async with each binding.
There is a big, big difference between Angular and the other frameworks you mentioned. Angular is part of a larger ecosystem (i.e. JavaScript) that is going through massive changes on its own (i.e. ES6 and all the other new JavaScript goodness). Angular can stand pat and do nothing while the world around them changes, but that is probably not the best strategy either.
Hopefully we didn't come off as too harsh. We were more poking harmless fun than trying to criticize. The Googlers I know that use Dart love it and swear by it.
As for little/no benefits, that is certainly not true. Angular 2 is going to be better in almost every way from Angular 1 and there are many great apps built off Angular 1. If you haven't tried Angular 2, I suggest giving it a go once the they get to beta.
At a first glance the link you provided promotes double insanity: angular 1 mixed with angular 2 (because angular 1 was not complex enough when angular 2 decided to simplify it with new syntax and requiring typescript which seems to require node.js). Is there some documentation for angular 2 with plain javascript (no typescript) for people who want to keep it simpler ? Can you provide some links ? Thank you.
if you consider a "node.js" requirement (read: a build step) too complex for your projects, you're probably correct in that you don't need any version of angular, react, ember, or anything else.
Do'ah. Valid criticism. We generated the pie charts from Google Forms (where we had the survey), but we didn't like they way they displayed the results (they were out of order). We should have added the color legend to our sorted results. I will add that later tonight after work. Apologies.
Shoot, yeah, you are right. I am one of the authors. I just updated this, but it looks like the page is cached so will take a couple minutes for it to correctly show 196.
