If it's good enough for FB it must be good for us.
It's a perceived productivity cult.
It's an attempt to minimize cost of implementation at the expense of everything else.
There is the expectation that components are more "reusable" (how does this work out in practice?).
The component mindset is grounded in familiar OO while the view = fn(state) approach is easier to reason about at design time - imposing the runtime cost of loading and running the VDOM.
Interestingly the Elm community came to the conclusion that "components don't work" (in Elm). Packaging pieces of the Model, Update, and View into a "component" abstraction doesn't create a unit that composes particularly well. The constituent parts of the Model, Update, and View compose in very different ways. It's the types that flow through them that connect everything.
Some of the emerging React Patterns remind me of the old meme that many OO patterns exist to get around the shortcomings of OO (a bit of a slanderous claim - but there are some "I need a pattern for that?" moments).
At this point the horse has left the barn. There are lots of codebases that are heavily invested in the React ecosystem and developers to help them grow are in ready supply. So what's left? Pointing out that there are better performing alternatives (like Preact/Unistore) for many projects?
The fact that it's backed and used by a mega-corp gives people a sense of stability and sustainability.
What doesn't enter into their thinking is that FB has the resources to deliver native applications to any platform they wish - FB has no problem with "walled gardens" so their web solution doesn't have to have the full reach of the "entire web" - just enough for first contact and to get somebody to download a native app for a "better experience" (and more access to their data).
Another thing I didn't mention is the lure of "reuse" via React native. Historically speaking cross-platform solutions don't serve any particular platform that well - it's always a compromise. In this case it's the VDOM that makes it possible to reuse React components on another rendering platform. There's already a varied collection of web platforms so trying to additionally accomodate other platforms which are even more different can only be severely limiting.
"The fact that it's backed and used by a mega-corp gives people a sense of stability and sustainability."
The fact that it's backed and used by a mega-CORRUPT-corp makes me discard it regardless of the stability and sustainability it may offer me. It's a matter of principles. I apply the same for the rest of the FB stuff. I love VR but I refuse to use their oculus glasses even though these are the best. Unfortunately whatsapp is the only thing I cannot get rid of because I would be left alone ...
Sorry telegram, I love you anyway ...
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
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.
If it's good enough for FB it must be good for us.
It's a perceived productivity cult.
It's an attempt to minimize cost of implementation at the expense of everything else.
There is the expectation that components are more "reusable" (how does this work out in practice?).
The component mindset is grounded in familiar OO while the view = fn(state) approach is easier to reason about at design time - imposing the runtime cost of loading and running the VDOM.
"Components are objects"
Interestingly the Elm community came to the conclusion that "components don't work" (in Elm). Packaging pieces of the Model, Update, and View into a "component" abstraction doesn't create a unit that composes particularly well. The constituent parts of the Model, Update, and View compose in very different ways. It's the types that flow through them that connect everything.
Elm Europe 2017 - Richard Feldman - Scaling Elm Apps
Some of the emerging React Patterns remind me of the old meme that many OO patterns exist to get around the shortcomings of OO (a bit of a slanderous claim - but there are some "I need a pattern for that?" moments).
Some older posts (i.e. this is not news, people have been warned):
React + Performance = ? (2015)
The DOM Is NOT Slow, Your Abstraction Is (2015)
At this point the horse has left the barn. There are lots of codebases that are heavily invested in the React ecosystem and developers to help them grow are in ready supply. So what's left? Pointing out that there are better performing alternatives (like Preact/Unistore) for many projects?
The other issue is that "current UI frameworks on the web are the centre of your universe".
Do people actually think this way? That scares me a bit.
I've been a fan of Preact. Thanks for showing me Unistore.
The fact that it's backed and used by a mega-corp gives people a sense of stability and sustainability.
What doesn't enter into their thinking is that FB has the resources to deliver native applications to any platform they wish - FB has no problem with "walled gardens" so their web solution doesn't have to have the full reach of the "entire web" - just enough for first contact and to get somebody to download a native app for a "better experience" (and more access to their data).
Another thing I didn't mention is the lure of "reuse" via React native. Historically speaking cross-platform solutions don't serve any particular platform that well - it's always a compromise. In this case it's the VDOM that makes it possible to reuse React components on another rendering platform. There's already a varied collection of web platforms so trying to additionally accomodate other platforms which are even more different can only be severely limiting.
You may also enjoy this article: radEventListener: a Tale of Client-side Framework Performance
Jason Miller also created a JSX alternative HTM.
"The fact that it's backed and used by a mega-corp gives people a sense of stability and sustainability."
The fact that it's backed and used by a mega-CORRUPT-corp makes me discard it regardless of the stability and sustainability it may offer me. It's a matter of principles. I apply the same for the rest of the FB stuff. I love VR but I refuse to use their oculus glasses even though these are the best. Unfortunately whatsapp is the only thing I cannot get rid of because I would be left alone ...
Sorry telegram, I love you anyway ...