You don't need to use JSX with react-router and Fiber is not a rewrite of the entire framework.
It's being reported like it is.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/18/facebook-announces-react-f...
An experienced Javascript developer’s account of learning React
61–70 of 157 posts
Re: An experienced Javascript developer’s account of learning React
#62In general the React approach works best if you are willing to build out a handful of utilities on your own sometimes, rather than always choosing from pre-existing open-source solutions. You don't need React Router. You don't need React-Redux. Heck, you don't always need Redux, you can just throw a state object on the window (or make a state module or whatever you do these days). Here's a React 15 app in a single HT…
I had high hopes there, but I don't see an app, I just see enough boilerplate to put a Hello, world! into the DOM, which could have been done by just writing that into HTML. I can understand what it's doing, but I don't think it's a good example of how you can write an actual app without the parts people are mentioning.
Re: An experienced Javascript developer’s account of learning React
#63Those are great points, my solution don't use Redux, Mobx and React Router and webpack if you can. React itself is great thought, but for some reason it's surrounded by over-engineered yet popular projects.
Re: An experienced Javascript developer’s account of learning React
#64The best explanation I've seen for why React is such a pleasant experience, is that it's a text-based version of the best parts of Visual Basic - you use React to lay out pre-built UI components, build your own new ones, and the UI behavior is a function of the properties you set. React, and similar libraries, have the advantage of being parasitic - you can fit them in along with a lot of what's already out there, wi…
This makes a lot of sense. In practice each component can function as a complexity-hiding layer, making integrations with other code a breeze compared to the status quo.
Re: An experienced Javascript developer’s account of learning React
#65In general the React approach works best if you are willing to build out a handful of utilities on your own sometimes, rather than always choosing from pre-existing open-source solutions. You don't need React Router. You don't need React-Redux. Heck, you don't always need Redux, you can just throw a state object on the window (or make a state module or whatever you do these days). Here's a React 15 app in a single HT…
I had high hopes there, but I don't see an app, I just see enough boilerplate to put a Hello, world! into the DOM, which could have been done by just writing that into HTML. I can understand what it's doing, but I don't think it's a good example of how you can write an actual app without the parts people are mentioning.
You'd include all the modules as separate script files. Each script file is a revealing module[0] that exports its API to a global variable. If you're interested I could put together a more complete boilerplate. I don't actually use this approach much in front-end work these days, but it can be nice to work with just text editor and browser.
As for building it, you're on your own. You could run jsx from the command line, concat them all together and minify.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5647258/how-to-use-reveal...
Re: An experienced Javascript developer’s account of learning React
#66You don't need to use JSX with react-router and Fiber is not a rewrite of the entire framework.
It's being reported like it is. https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/18/facebook-announces-react-f...
People also reported that Hillary would win. In reality so far I don't see how 15->16 is different than 14->15
Re: An experienced Javascript developer’s account of learning React
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's being reported like it is. https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/18/facebook-announces-react-f...
People also reported that Hillary would win. In reality so far I don't see how 15->16 is different than 14->15
My point is you can forgive someone for that kind of error when there are articles making the round from semi-reputable sources that include quotes from sources that appear to back up their claims. Especially when it doesn't seem to have a political slant or angle to it (aside, possibly, from someone at Facebook deciding for PR reasons they should frame this as a complete rewrite, in which case you're being lied to by the people doing the work, so where does that leave you?)
Re: An experienced Javascript developer’s account of learning React
#68I am confused why people think Redux is complicated. Maybe you were trying to use React-Redux? Redux itself seems incredibly simple to me, so simple that I sometimes wonder if I need a library for the functionality at all. This "Redux in a nutshell" sums up the simplicity nicely I think: https://gist.github.com/MarcoWorms/30758235f05faec844b8c06ce...
I was a relatively early adopter of Redux and, while I understand the appeal of the architecture and mental model, I was always annoyed by the boilerplate (to turn plain language functions into serializable events) and unclear approach to modularization (single state tree is too much like a global). For moderately complex apps I found the practical downsides of those heavier than the pros of unidirectional flow and reproducible execution. Haven't touched it in over a year so I can't say if things are better, but somehow I doubt it.
Re: An experienced Javascript developer’s account of learning React
#69I was very intrigued by the title: Things nobody will tell you about React.js Immediately had high hopes that someone is going to try and give a well researched, novel critique that maybe can spur out some constructive conversation. And then, sadly, the author goes on to write exactly what countless other articles have already covered and discussed to the death for years now. "HTML in JS", "JSX is bad", "Redux is com…
Re: An experienced Javascript developer’s account of learning React
#70React popularity seems to me the result of wrongly-headed thinking: that because facebook is popular, any technology behind it must be good, and because react is popular (allegedly), react must be good. I've always been very sceptical of react, and I'm glad I didn't invest too much time looking into it, as it seems both a time sink and a boilerplate-filled approach. I wonder why some people like it, writing no-framew…
I am not a js dev, but isn't the issue of no-framework that you have to write a bunch of code to deal for various browsers? And a bunch of more code to deal with basic web patterns that you'll end up copying from project to project?
>I am not a js dev, but isn't the issue of no-framework that you have to write a bunch of code to deal for various browsers?
No, because it's 2017, not 2007.