51–60 of 64 posts
That is actually still React. React is React Core + ReactDOM (web) renderer. React Native is the React Core + native renderer. They are both still React, and they both use Javascript, which while fast when JIT'd, is typically much slower than native code. I'm not commenting on whether this is a good or bad thing, but the article strikes me as a bit misleading.
nit: the embedded screenshot of the Windows 11 Start Menu is low res enough that seeing/reading the Recommended section is challenging without squinting!
Title is pretty bad. It should be “Yes Windows Start Uses React but Not the Way You or I Do As Web Developers.”
>Windows Start does not use React Ok >This is the part of the Windows Start that uses React. Ok
The whole UI situation in Windows is absolutely ludicrous. Is the recommendations panel in the start menu, which nobody actually wants to begin with, really so complicated that it justifies bringing in a JS runtime? And is C# and WinUI really so hard to use that they can’t just make it with that? And if WinUI is hard to use, maybe they should like.. make it better? At least Apple had the decency to take the React par…
>It’s React Native for Windows which is a flavor of React Native that directly calls Windows APIs including, you guessed it, WinUI 3. >So that’s it. Windows Start has a very small section (that can be disabled) that’s written in a framework that follows React principles and compiles down to native code. False. React Native doesn't "compile down to native code". It runs actual JavaScript, just not inside a browser, bu…
Yep, oversimplification on my part. I'll make some edits.
> This was an oversimplification bordering on being misleading. It’s a lighter JS runtime that’s calling native code for rendering controls. The argument still has merit. Just because something in JS doesn’t make it slow or bloated. Interpreted languages will almost always be slower than their native compiled counterparts, but it’s negligble [sic] for these purposes.
Isn't it a full JS runtime? I think by "a lighter JS runtime that's calling native code" you mean it doesn't deal with HTML/CSS rendering, but that's not what JS runtime means. These are separate parts of the browser architecture.
I don't agree it's negligible for this purpose. Core OS functionality should run well on old/cheap machines, and throwing in unnecessary interpreters/JITs for trivial stuff is inconsistent with their recently announced commitment to "faster and more responsive Windows experiences" and "improved memory efficiency".
>It’s React Native for Windows which is a flavor of React Native that directly calls Windows APIs including, you guessed it, WinUI 3. >So that’s it. Windows Start has a very small section (that can be disabled) that’s written in a framework that follows React principles and compiles down to native code. False. React Native doesn't "compile down to native code". It runs actual JavaScript, just not inside a browser, bu…
On slow enough Azure VDI host you could briefly see no-css language string when the start menu was still preparing for actual usage
React Native for Windows is quite different from embedding a web React app in the OS shell. It’s essentially a renderer that maps React components to native WinUI controls.
So saying “Windows Start is written in React” is a bit like saying an iOS app built with SwiftUI is “written in HTML”.
But surely there is some happy middle ground that doesn't end up with a entire js runtime in the damn start menu?
I'm a fairly casual dev compared to faang folk, but surely even they realised this was an awful choice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And it is on a portion of the Start menu that can be fully disabled. I mean, with tons of effort and config Windows can be turned into a usable OS. Needing to do all that is a huge part of the problem.
If you deem a couple of clicks "tons of effort", don't touch macOS!