Hey, I'm sorry if my reply frustrated you. I'll try to clarify a few things. I don't mean to create any FUD. I think my position is very concrete. (And it's definitely not something about "real engineers" — I'd like React to be welcome to everybody.)
React uses imperative and object oriented DOM under the hood; does that make it imperative? If it is, that's not why. So why does this keep getting repeated without even a dependent clause nodding to any of that nuance?
Of course under the hood it's all imperative. The question is only about how you write the majority of your application code and how components are expressed. I already linked to this talk in my first comment but I'd be happy to link again: reactjs.org/blog/2018/03/01/sneak-...
In this talk I show a few things that I believe are very valuable from both developer and end user perspective. Features like these are not possible if your "glue code" between components is imperative. If you watch the talk I think you'll realize what I'm talking about. I'm sorry that I don't have a shorter and more condensed version of my argument than a conference talk. But I hope that if you find the time to watch it, you'll see that I'm talking about specific things and not vague FUD about imperative/declarative.
If React is not solving your problems that's cool too. No need to assume ill intent.
React meets some of my needs, but not others. So I use it for some use cases, and not for others.
Again, don't get half of this response. The frustrating part is getting replies that seem to be aimed at something entirely different from what I posted.
Like, is this some form of communal trolling, or am I just that bad at expressing myself?
Your first post would have definitely been an odd opener in person. It's like talking shit before shaking hands. Not going to go over well.
A non negligible percentage of standards become standards after a company builds something and demonstrates it's worth, at which point standards bodies go through the process you described. See SPDY / QUIC. Its much easier to define and iterate on something after someone else has demonstrated success.
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.
Hey, I'm sorry if my reply frustrated you. I'll try to clarify a few things. I don't mean to create any FUD. I think my position is very concrete. (And it's definitely not something about "real engineers" — I'd like React to be welcome to everybody.)
Of course under the hood it's all imperative. The question is only about how you write the majority of your application code and how components are expressed. I already linked to this talk in my first comment but I'd be happy to link again: reactjs.org/blog/2018/03/01/sneak-...
In this talk I show a few things that I believe are very valuable from both developer and end user perspective. Features like these are not possible if your "glue code" between components is imperative. If you watch the talk I think you'll realize what I'm talking about. I'm sorry that I don't have a shorter and more condensed version of my argument than a conference talk. But I hope that if you find the time to watch it, you'll see that I'm talking about specific things and not vague FUD about imperative/declarative.
If React is not solving your problems that's cool too. No need to assume ill intent.
I admire your patience.
Who is assuming ill intent and about what?
React meets some of my needs, but not others. So I use it for some use cases, and not for others.
Again, don't get half of this response. The frustrating part is getting replies that seem to be aimed at something entirely different from what I posted.
Like, is this some form of communal trolling, or am I just that bad at expressing myself?
Your first post would have definitely been an odd opener in person. It's like talking shit before shaking hands. Not going to go over well.
A non negligible percentage of standards become standards after a company builds something and demonstrates it's worth, at which point standards bodies go through the process you described. See SPDY / QUIC. Its much easier to define and iterate on something after someone else has demonstrated success.