Rails has won: The Elephant in the Room
&quot;But I would never, ever, begin a new business that depends solely on Angular to survive. Why? Because Google doesn&#x27;t need it. It didn&#x27;t blink to give up GWT, it didn&#x27;t have to think twice to decide to rewrite Angular 2 in an incompatible way to Angular 1, and so on.&quot;<p>This is just wrong - almost 3&#x2F;4 of Google&#x27;s web apps depend on Angular from what I have heard from multiple Googlers. If a rare instance where an Angular release failure occurs, it shuts down Google&#x27;s development process dramatically &amp; costs millions in productivity.<p>That rewrite is aimed at making Angular vastly improved - that doesn&#x27;t equate to giving up on Angular, that is a poor analogy. In fact, Google decided to start investing vastly more resources into the Angular team, rapidly hiring and growing the team into a proper one, as opposed to it being a pet project of the Adwords team. In the next year or two, that ambition will bear much more fruit as mindshare grows with the realization of the technical problems solved &amp; improved upon by ng2 - if React doesn&#x27;t gear up to evolve, we&#x27;ll probably see either a lot of defection to Angular, or a competitor that disagrees with the complexity that Angular introduces appearing to swallow React, just as React has done the same to grab disenchanted Backbone&#x2F;Angular&#x2F;etc. users.<p>Otherwise, the article does a good job explaining a lot of things, but it is very defeatist, as if it is futile to try to improve upon things. I can&#x27;t say I agree with that sentiment, it goes against the heart of research&#x2F;trailblazing&#x2F;experimentation&#x2F;etc.<p>It also makes some weak assertions, such as &quot;One rarely benefits from big bang rewrites from scratch.&quot;, which is a generality being applied to every single situation, a fallacy. Confusing commonly accepted wisdom in development with an overextension of their meaning can lead to bad conclusions, as well as bad decision making.