I have to agree. Will there be backwards compatibility? If not, upgrading to angular 2 is going to require so much work and we'll probably end up switching frameworks. This could end up like Python 2 & 3.
It used to mean that it is stable and it will carry on working as far as it can to the future major versions or until it is end of line of the product.
So I can understand if Angular 1.0 stopped working on Angular 4.0 or 5.0. Breaking apps just on one major revision number is really a bad way to manage frameworks.
It's what killed Drupal for me (and many others). Frameworks should provide for either a porting tool or backwards compatibility between major versions. Otherwise you alienate the people that trusted your in the first place.
Really? Well when it came to programs, one used to expect that older versions of the files used with that program would themselves be upgraded, or would just work. However, when it comes to languages, the major version number is used to indicate breaking changes.
You are probably thinking Python 2 and Python 3. For languages like C#, you can compile C# 1.0 code on C# 6.0 compiler mostly just fine. I bet this applies to C as well.
Hard to compare languages and frameworks in this respect. I think a better comparison is frameworks and operating systems. Imagine every major release of the linux kernel killing backwards compatibility with all older binaries and software written.
