Next.js 14

- more comprehensive documentation & tutorials around your own MDX solution would be great. It feels like you put that together, but don't intend anyone to really use it in production, expecting people to go for next-mdx-remote or mdx-bundler

- fix internationalization: I've heard multiple people complain that you now can't do mydomain.com/blog/first-post & have the French version at mydomain.com/fr/blog/first-post. Instead, you need to put everything under a locale, so the English version needs to be mydomain.com/en/blog/first-post

...just in general, it would be nice to see more documentation & tutorials for next 13 / 14 and the app router. People are also not very responsive on github, it feels like you are just moving forward, without waiting for anything to be stable.

When I said actual I meant it. RSC is a Next.js feature baked into React.

PS: I'm not the target market for Vercel, Mr. Robinson. I think you can skip the damage control for my comments: I don't have your reach so maybe just pretend it's an old man yelling (very truthful things) at the clouds, it can't actually hurt your PR machine.

Lately, it seems like most issues aren't even being acknowledged. It's pretty frustrating to encounter a bug in a documented use case, spend hours trying to fix it, realize it's a Next issue that was filed months ago but has yet to receive a response from Vercel, or to have reproduced and explained the issue and be ignored for months and counting.

The issue count at Next is huge, and I'm sure overwhelming, but if you're going to hype "stable" features that are beta at best, there ought to be some measure of support (or at least acknowledgment) for when they don't work.

People invest their livelihoods in these frameworks, and false claims are damaging. I'm currently knee deep in a project that can't budget a rewrite, so I'm just hoping someone at some point notices these issues and they get fixed. Not great. I've yet to encounter a project that calls features "stable" as carelessly as Next does. I've never felt so burned by open-source marketing.

If I was starting a new project today, I would stay away from Next.

Also not sure how much more precise I can be in saying "they funded this effort" than my original comment which says "Vercel managed to fund an effort"

The issues I'm experiencing are for the App Router. Namely, and to keep things reasonable scoped, with parallel routes. These are being recommended for common use cases, but a lot of things are broken along their way (along with intercepting routes)... I'd recommend searching issues for the full breadth, but here are a few that jump to mind:

Server actions don't work in parallel routes unless that route was hard navigated: https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/54173

Parallel routes don't unmount if navigated from with anything other than router.back()... this might be a documentation issue, as I recently got this to work as expected in one case with a null page.js at the root of the parallel route: https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/49662

CSS Modules don't work on hard navigation... entire paths render unstyled: https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/52245 https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/56524

Speaking of CSS Modules, they import multiple times in indeterminate order. This breaks precedence and the cascade, making styles indeterminate. There are hacks that mitigate this, but even with the hacks it causes problems: https://github.com/vercel/next.js/issues/51030

These aren't exactly edge cases, and to get at the heart of my complaint, they haven't been acknowledged, or haven't been followed up on for months, despite being marked stable. I don't mean to suggest that you all aren't doing the best you can, and I certainly don't mean to suggest that you can do better technically, but as a user it's concerning to get in deep and continually run into beta issues on what's meant to be stable, and be in the dark as to when they'll get resolved, much less if the team is even aware of them.