Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If not React, then what?

infrequently.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 756 posts

Re: If not React, then what?

#71

Post by simonw »

quantadev wrote: post #69
simonw wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you explored cross-document view transitions? Would you classify something that uses those as an app or a site? https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/view-transiti...

I'm not saying my own definition of "app" is the only correct definition, but in my opinion only if I do a click and something on the SAME page changes, then it's an app. Transitioning to different pages isn't an app, imo.

With this browser feature a navigation to a new page can look like only part of the page changes - without needing any JavaScript.

Re: If not React, then what?

#72

Post by quantadev »

simonw wrote: post #71
quantadev wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying my own definition of "app" is the only correct definition, but in my opinion only if I do a click and something on the SAME page changes, then it's an app. Transitioning to different pages isn't an app, imo.

With this browser feature a navigation to a new page can look like only part of the page changes - without needing any JavaScript.

> can look like

Yeah, but it ain't. lol.

Re: If not React, then what?

#73

Post by crvst »

QuiDortDine wrote: post #7

WOW this is a long article! Still waiting for the substance though... The only point I can agree with is that React is stupidly hard to learn. It feels like a tool made for aliens, though once you master it, it can be pretty efficient. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the JS-free web isn't coming back. And if you're using modern JS, you might as well use React (or a similar tool). The user won't be able to tel…

Cannot agree more! Mastering React is ridiculously hard for what it is. There are so many “buts,” “it depends,” and subtle differences to navigate, like useEffect vs. useLayoutEffect. But don't forget useEffect is an evil in the first place and so on, and so on.

It feels like a clever proof of concept with a leaky abstraction at its core, one that no amount of effort can truly fix, no matter how much they throw at it. They’re even building their own compiler. A compiler. For something that’s supposed to represent the V in MVC.

As a SPA framework, it’s questionable. But using React to build server-side apps? That’s beyond absurd for me, it’s like Electron for the backend, only worse. And yet, the industry loves to pretend otherwise, so here we are.

Re: If not React, then what?

#75

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

ganksalot wrote: post #42
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent a lot of time working on react applications of one kind or another and I think most businesses don’t have “problems that React solves” for their frontends. Somewhere that’s actually an application might, but most line of business applications would be better as something like Rails views rather than React

> I think most businesses don’t have “problems that React solves” for their frontends. that is neither here nor there. you are replying to an article whose thrust is that react ought never be used. > Somewhere that’s actually an application might might, lol? wait are you the author? > most line of business applications would be better as something like Rails views rather than React why?

Because, for most business applications I've worked on, React just complicates the frontend code compared to serving up simple HTML views and for no real benefit aside from "using React"

Re: If not React, then what?

#76

Post by photonthug »

emmanueloga_ wrote: post #58
simonw wrote: post #37

A fun thing about reading Alex is that you can tell he's had the same arguments over and over again for a decade now and he's frustrated with having to keep on making the same points and getting the exact same responses. Most of the people commenting on this piece won't have read this whole article (it's long, and internet attention spans are short). As a result, you'll find plenty of the comments here were exactly p…

If you try something for a decade and it doesn't work, maybe a change in style is necessary! An article exceeding 20 pages doesn't sound like the best persuasion strategy.

I’m not a front end engineer and I read most of this, at first for sheer morbid curiosity about the drama, then I kept reading because it looked like deep knowledge and detailed exposition of a complex subject, then I kept reading because I was wondering who listens to a guy like this and why?

In my experience, regardless of your skill at communication, coworkers or bosses that are actually interested in getting to deep knowledge or detailed analysis about anything are extremely rare. If you need to communicate a subtle point or detailed argument, then you’ve already lost. This is because for any technical decision the opposite argument from FUD is easier to make and easier to digest, regardless of whether the FUD advice is to stay/defect on the tech stack or the design decision or whatever. IOW the winning strategy is basically to always go 2nd after what TFA calls the “thoughtful engineer” burns out the audience by being rational and thorough. Even more bluntly.. most people are just showing up to work and have no interest (and much less passion) for craftsmanship.

I wish it was different, since I believe in architecture / design. But, there’s a good chance no one cares about your detailed analysis at all and you’re much better off producing more shallow demos/diagrams/decks regardless of whether your audience is engineers or management.

Re: If not React, then what?

#77

Post by xcrunner529 »

x0x0 wrote: post #64
xcrunner529 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can read it that way if you ignore the rest of the article, I guess. They simply are saying many (most?) sites do not need to be SPAs and the baggage that entails with load times and latency. Follow a process to determine what is really needed based on objective requirements and then use objective measures to ensure it does not degrade the experience. In most cases later frameworks are slow and bulky. I certainly…

Nah, the rest of the article is not insightful either. eg React Native is dismissed in 5 sentences, with no real solution at all given to the basic problem of wanting to have a website and mobile apps without writing your app 3 times. Let alone a website + mobile apps + windows + mac clients. The suggested solutions do not address this need -- eg there's some Apache crap that no one I've heard of uses (it's renamed A…

I think sadly to that point there’s no solution given because there isn’t one. And the ones that promise it (RN) still has you doing tons of platform specific code and in some cases supporting even more platforms than just going native.

Re: If not React, then what?

#78

Post by thesuavefactor »

quantadev wrote: post #20

The people who don't think React (or Vue) is important are the same ones who have never worked on a large project with lots of screen updates and state changes that absolutely cannot be avoided. React is still #1 in popularity, and the most crucial tool for almost any web developer (aside from using TypeScript, instead of plain JS which is also critical for large projects) React is reported to be used by 39.5% of dev…

You can't be more wrong. You're saying that only logic performed on the client side can be considered an application? State can be stored in the server. Screen changes can be done by loading html, it doesn't need a framework. React is far from crucial for web development, but people haven't learned anything else the last decade. Most front end developers these days don't even know what a template engine is, and some don't even know how to create a website without a backend rest api that spews json data.

Re: If not React, then what?

#79

Post by xcrunner529 »

rafaelmn wrote: post #49
simonw wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were you using a ~$2000 laptop on a broadband connection?

Out of curiosity I checked on iPhone 14/4g and 2018 Intel MBP. I don't get what the point of these comments is ? If you're using RPI with a 2g connection you'll have a bad experience shopping at the site ? And somehow that's supposed to factor in to my tech stack decisions ?

And it doesn’t even have to be that. Just someone at the wrong end from a cell phone tower or in a clogged one from a sports event or something.

Re: If not React, then what?

#80

Post by TiredOfLife »

xcrunner529 wrote: post #38
robertoandred wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

React is absolutely performant. A developer who makes a slow React site would make a slow site with something else.

Tell that to all the former PHP developers. Where are these performant React sites? The largest and best tech companies out there certainly can’t do it.

https://next-faster.vercel.app/
Post reply on HN