11–20 of 131 posts
The author used it that way here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QObt0SGriI
(I haven't seen the whole presentation so I can't comment if it's worthwhile to watch.)
Second, the Cycle.js code on slide 18 is some of the nastiest, kludgey looking JS I've ever seen.
I get the ideas behind Reactive Programming the author is presenting, and they are interesting, but if that's the code his implementation is meant to produce, no thank you.
- it isn't a framework
- thinking in terms of components can improve your code
- very easy to prototype
- react native
It's quite possible that React 1.0 or 2.0 will address all of the issues staltz points out. No harm in pointing out flaws but React does have a lot of good things going for it.
For anyone else who, like me, didn't realize it - there's a little triangle on the bottom right to let you go through the presentation.
The React team clearly states their design goals here: https://facebook.github.io/react/ ... and they have nothing to do with reactive programming.
To understand his criticism requires some familiarity with the cross-platform Reactive Extensions library and its approach. I made a jsfiddle a while back that illustrates how this works in a way that I hope is very straightforward: http://jsfiddle.net/nmd88wum/
For anyone else who, like me, didn't realize it - there's a little triangle on the bottom right to let you go through the presentation.
For anyone else who, like me, didn't realize it - there's a little triangle on the bottom right to let you go through the presentation.
What an awful UI decision. I wouldn't have even noticed it. EDIT: This apparently wasn't intended to be navigated by the general public, as explained by a comment below.
I think Facebook do a great job explaining what React is and as far as I am aware, they don't go claiming that React.js is a 100% reactive library. There are no unclear intentions, Facebook saw a need to improve DOM performance and they achieved it in a great library that I think is a pleasure to use.
I have built two projects solely using React and the Flux architecture. I don't have exact figures, but it saved me a lot of time compared to using something like AngularJS which has too many conventions and opinionated ways of doing things. I was able to get a nice performant CRUD application running in the space of a few days, most of the time was spent creating the API and getting it to return the appropriate data.
How can you write off a library like React.js when it goes beyond just another open source project, and unlike Google with AngularJS, Facebook aren't dogfooding their own product and they are actually using it for parts of Facebook, the Instagram website and a few other places. React.js is a battle-tested library. Those who have used React.js on a proper project know that it is very easy to use and its performance is better than any other SPA framework by far. Unlike other frameworks and libraries, React.js can back up its claims and has proven benchmark after benchmark it can render UI components extremely fast and efficiently (with a concentrated effort to make it even faster).
Sure, React might do things differently and it might not be a pure form of reactive programming, but it works and it works very well. Coupled with Flux, you actually do get a nice and reactive development environment where events are emitted and things are updated throughout your application from your stores. I don't really see Flux being mentioned in the slideshow which is a shame because Flux is the missing piece of the reactive puzzle.
It's easy to say something sucks without really giving an adequate reason why it sucks. Seems like the author had a bad experience with React or perhaps just wanted to ruffle some feathers. I also got the impression the author was trying to pedal their own library Cycle.js which will no doubt be abandoned in 12 months time when it doesn't get as popular as he would have hoped. Nice try, but not a very well thought out argument in my opinion.