Performance and size are two factors that often can be optimized, but what about DX? Ever had to add forms to your React app? Spent time deciding on which forms library is best, finally went with Formik, and then spent half a day trying to find the optimal integration way for just your app. Ever got lost in hook hell? Are you sure you understand how useEffect works and where you should use it? My point is, React is overly-complicated and React fatigue is real.
I think that you should use technology/framework that makes you most productive while reducing your cognitive load at the same time. Newbies often jump on the React bandwagon because it comes from a big company and "everyone is using it".
I don't blame them. After all, it's where the money and jobs are. But do I feel sorry for them, because React is not easy to learn and IMO not a good first introduction to web development.
Also, JSX should be a low assembly language instead of something you write your apps in. Change my mind.
Also, JSX should be a low assembly language instead of something you write your apps in. Change my mind.
Not sure I know what this means. JSX is just another way to write HTML, except it's in JavaScript and gets compiled to HTML. I'm not sure how it's even comparable to assembly...
So is it JS or HTML? Just kidding, of course. To me personally JSX always felt low level, something that is better suited to be generated by a machine from some higher templating language and then compiled to HTML. svelte-check tool does this to validate Svelte's templates for example. But the good thing is that we all have freedom of choice. Use whatever makes your heart beat.
Yup, you're right, JSX compiles down to React.createElement calls, which create elements (JSON blobs really) that describe UIs. But at the end of the day, these just translate into native DOM render calls. "Compile" was a poor choice of wording on my part :)
Having worked with React for about two years now, I honestly don't see the problem with JSX. It's an excellent, declarative syntax for creating UIs.
Naahh... React Elements ... which if I understand correctly are more generally vnodes.
"Compile" was a poor choice of wording on my part :)
It was the "HTML" that prompted me - "compile" is often used where "transpile" is appropriate - the issue is when people see JSX as markup rather than function calls; HTML only gets generated for SSR, not for client side rendering.
I honestly don't see the problem with JSX. It's an excellent, declarative syntax for creating UIs.
JSX as part of a sequence of JavaScript statements can be quite imperative; e.g. Marko's components are more declarative - the imperative behaviour of the component is clearly separated from its rendered representation; no "context switching" while reading JavaScript code.
But clearly there are people on both sides of the fence.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Performance and size are two factors that often can be optimized, but what about DX? Ever had to add forms to your React app? Spent time deciding on which forms library is best, finally went with Formik, and then spent half a day trying to find the optimal integration way for just your app. Ever got lost in hook hell? Are you sure you understand how useEffect works and where you should use it? My point is, React is overly-complicated and React fatigue is real.
I think that you should use technology/framework that makes you most productive while reducing your cognitive load at the same time. Newbies often jump on the React bandwagon because it comes from a big company and "everyone is using it".
I don't blame them. After all, it's where the money and jobs are. But do I feel sorry for them, because React is not easy to learn and IMO not a good first introduction to web development.
Also, JSX should be a low assembly language instead of something you write your apps in. Change my mind.
Everybody is different.
deep
Not sure I know what this means. JSX is just another way to write HTML, except it's in JavaScript and gets compiled to HTML. I'm not sure how it's even comparable to assembly...
If you are talking about compiled Javascript (e.g. es5, minified), I think it is always Hyperscript, not JSX.
So is it JS or HTML? Just kidding, of course. To me personally JSX always felt low level, something that is better suited to be generated by a machine from some higher templating language and then compiled to HTML. svelte-check tool does this to validate Svelte's templates for example. But the good thing is that we all have freedom of choice. Use whatever makes your heart beat.
It compiles down to JavaScript React.createElement calls - not HTML.
JSX sees itself as an XML-like syntax extension to ECMAScript (i.e. not HTML).
So the common complaint is "what is this XML doing in my JavaScript code".
"I still maintain that JSX is pretty horrible."
Yup, you're right, JSX compiles down to React.createElement calls, which create elements (JSON blobs really) that describe UIs. But at the end of the day, these just translate into native DOM render calls. "Compile" was a poor choice of wording on my part :)
Having worked with React for about two years now, I honestly don't see the problem with JSX. It's an excellent, declarative syntax for creating UIs.
Naahh... React Elements ... which if I understand correctly are more generally vnodes.
It was the "HTML" that prompted me - "compile" is often used where "transpile" is appropriate - the issue is when people see JSX as markup rather than function calls; HTML only gets generated for SSR, not for client side rendering.
JSX as part of a sequence of JavaScript statements can be quite imperative; e.g. Marko's components are more declarative - the imperative behaviour of the component is clearly separated from its rendered representation; no "context switching" while reading JavaScript code.
But clearly there are people on both sides of the fence.