You end your comment in a condescending and yet you have the nerve to tell me that I should follow you, when you have only one article posted, ever. Are you for real? And why do you keep telling me to look up Avira? Tell me at least that you are getting paid to promote Avira in every comment you make, because I don't see any other logic to speak about it when it wasn't the freaking subject of my rant.
Anyway, going to back to my issues, maybe you'll understand this time. Your article has not a single useful thing in it, it just regurgitates random facts. AngularJS might be the best thing since sliced bread, but you do a poor job at explaining why. Does it matter that it has more commits, forks and stars on github than alternative frameworks? No. Does it matter that is backed up by Google? No. But please explain why are these things relevant in any shape or form. It seems to me that you just went with the winner of a beauty pageant.
You didn't added certain links, you added just one link, and it was buried in a mountain of crap. It would have been nice if you expanded on the content from that link. You say that this is a tech post, but I don't see no tech in it (buzzwords =/= tech).
"We rewrote it". Yes, well argued, I see no flaw with that statement (/sarcasm). You could have said that you used X feature in Y manner to improve Z and thus replace the god old W way of doing things. But why bother? You were too busy counting github commits and whatnot.
Do you understand where I'm going with this? Or are you gonna reply with yet another "look up Avira" and "here's another argument from authority to prove me right" comment?
In the end, I think I'm just talking to a wall here, so I'll just leave you with a Pauli inspired statement: "you're article is not even wrong" (you'll get bonus points from me if you understand this one).
Anyway, going to back to my issues, maybe you'll understand this time. Your article has not a single useful thing in it, it just regurgitates random facts. AngularJS might be the best thing since sliced bread, but you do a poor job at explaining why. Does it matter that it has more commits, forks and stars on github than alternative frameworks? No. Does it matter that is backed up by Google? No. But please explain why are these things relevant in any shape or form. It seems to me that you just went with the winner of a beauty pageant.
You didn't added certain links, you added just one link, and it was buried in a mountain of crap. It would have been nice if you expanded on the content from that link. You say that this is a tech post, but I don't see no tech in it (buzzwords =/= tech).
"We rewrote it". Yes, well argued, I see no flaw with that statement (/sarcasm). You could have said that you used X feature in Y manner to improve Z and thus replace the god old W way of doing things. But why bother? You were too busy counting github commits and whatnot.
Do you understand where I'm going with this? Or are you gonna reply with yet another "look up Avira" and "here's another argument from authority to prove me right" comment?
In the end, I think I'm just talking to a wall here, so I'll just leave you with a Pauli inspired statement: "you're article is not even wrong" (you'll get bonus points from me if you understand this one).