There is so much in this article that is disingenuous.
For example point #4 complains that Angular redefines Constructor to mean something else.
The controller constructor IS a constructor, it constructs an instance of a controller and can request and decorate(or construct) a new scope by injecting $scope.
But the debate aside... the quoted revision is over a year old! (It also hasn't reflected the behaviour of the controller constructor for even longer than that, but that's a separate matter.)
For example point #4 complains that Angular redefines Constructor to mean something else.
The controller constructor IS a constructor, it constructs an instance of a controller and can request and decorate(or construct) a new scope by injecting $scope.
But the debate aside... the quoted revision is over a year old! (It also hasn't reflected the behaviour of the controller constructor for even longer than that, but that's a separate matter.)