> Angular 2/4 is a completely over-engineered trainwreck.
I can appreciate that the author loves Vue.js but I don't think its very constructive have such a binary view of something they clearly haven't spent much time with. Angular is not "over-engineered". Its complete. Its got everything you need and an established, well documented pattern to do it. Its far from perfect but then what is? I've used it, React, Angular 1.x etc and all of them have their strengths and weaknesses. It depends on your team and what you are trying to do.
Its important to remember all these frameworks are built by people just like us who try very hard to make them the best they can be. It would be nice if we spent more time celebrating all the wonderful FREE tools they build for us rather than tearing down the ones that we didn't pick.
I'm not in love with the way the MVC framework takes over and wraps the TS compiler (and a very specific version of the TS compiler) to compile templates. Seems an obvious layering violation.
I'll take composition over inheritance in my tooling.
I suppose I'd need to know what specifically you've run up against to justify your distaste for the approach. I too prefer composition but I'm not against another way if it works.
(1) The angular compiler doesn't have the same JS or CLI interface as the TypeScript compiler. I have to know very specifically which I am using when; my build tooling must always know whether it's compiling TS the Angular way, or the vanilla way, and there isn't much commonality.
(2) What if I want to use an alternative TS compiler? Or someone writes a faster one in Go? Or I want to use tsickle [1], which is Closure Compiler-compatible?
Now it turns out there isn't a TS compiler in Go, and the Angular team are the authors of tsickle, and so ngc happens to work with it. But it's an architectural smell to couple that closely for my MVC framework (and IMO with little necessity).