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

React v15.0

facebook.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 174 posts

Re: React v15.0

#81

Post by erichocean »

kuon wrote: post #40

If you are using typescript, you should read: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/7270 TLD'R: React 15.0 broke TSX in typescript but the workaround is easy.

FWIW I used TypeScript in anger with React, and hated it so much I rewrote all the React code in regular JavaScript. TypeScript and React, IMO, are a poor fit.

To be clear: I do like TypeScript and use it almost exclusively on the server, so this isn't a case of me "not liking TypeScript". It's the combination of the two. Basically, all of the stuff I did to keep TypeScript happy when using React was worthless overhead and brought nothing but pain, warping the codebase horribly. The JavaScript version with React was smaller, lighter, and had way less cognitive overhead. YMMV.

Re: React v15.0

#82

Post by erichocean »

nkw wrote: post #50
spicyj wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If React didn't have an explicit patent grant then there would be an implicit grant which does not have any retaliation clauses, and cannot be revoked. I'm not a lawyer. My understanding is that this is hypothetically possible but stands on shaky legal ground and has no legal precedent. Whether or not an implicit grant exists seems to depend on who you ask. This is apparently why GPLv3 includes an explicit grant. I…

>It could also be that there aren't any patents that cover React. If that is the case, why have this controversial patent clause at all? I haven't read them all, but Facebook seems to have a number of patents which at first glance are so broad they could apply to react: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160092096A1/en "a method performed by one or more computing devices including defining a hierarchical structure…

That list of patents reads like an Onion article. Is there a joke I'm missing here?

Re: React v15.0

#83

Post by [deleted] »

interlocutor wrote: post #30
spicyj wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We updated the patent grant to be less restrictive in response to community feedback about a year ago (several months after the discussion you linked): https://github.com/facebook/react/commit/b8ba8c83f318b84e429... Since that change I've heard few complaints, and I know for a fact that several large companies who were previously unwilling to use it are now content with the language.

I noticed you italicized the word grant . In reality the "grant" isn't granting; it is taking away. Let me explain: If React didn't have an explicit "grant" there would be an implicit grant. Is the explicit grant better than an implicit grant? It isn't because the explicit grant has what is known as a strong retaliation clause . More info on weak vs strong retaliation clauses: http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj9.htm React's…

[deleted]

Re: React v15.0

#85

Post by faitswulff »

bshimmin wrote: post #3

The referenced pull request for removing the s ( https://github.com/facebook/react/pull/5753 ) is terrific - a real paragon of open-source professionalism.

Do you happen to know what the thinking is behind having all the changes in one commit? I imagine it would make for a much neater master branch.

Re: React v15.0

#86

Post by spicyj »

faitswulff wrote: post #85
bshimmin wrote: post #3

The referenced pull request for removing the s ( https://github.com/facebook/react/pull/5753 ) is terrific - a real paragon of open-source professionalism.

Do you happen to know what the thinking is behind having all the changes in one commit? I imagine it would make for a much neater master branch.

Yes, that's one prime motivation. In this particular PR, it's not clear that it could have been split up into any smaller logical commits since a lot of the code is interdependent.

Re: React v15.0

#87

Post by spicyj »

qudat wrote: post #84

Is the `key` prop still required?

Yes, it is. React uses it to track identity of components in a list; it's significant especially when reordering children and affects both which DOM nodes get reused as well as whether this.state is preserved.

Re: React v15.0

#88

Post by DrJokepu »

erichocean wrote: post #81
kuon wrote: post #40

If you are using typescript, you should read: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/7270 TLD'R: React 15.0 broke TSX in typescript but the workaround is easy.

FWIW I used TypeScript in anger with React, and hated it so much I rewrote all the React code in regular JavaScript. TypeScript and React, IMO, are a poor fit. To be clear: I do like TypeScript and use it almost exclusively on the server, so this isn't a case of me "not liking TypeScript". It's the combination of the two. Basically, all of the stuff I did to keep TypeScript happy when using React was worthless overhe…

What is exactly your problem with TSX? I've been using TSX for a while so maybe I can help. The only thing that TypeScript really adds to JSX is component parameter validation, which is quite neat to be honest.

Re: React v15.0

#89

Post by [deleted] »

_uhtu wrote: post #19

Is there a reason why the file size has exploded? react.min.js is now 145.4kb. For comparioson, angular.min.js is 155.2kb. One of React's biggest selling points was that it was much smaller than Angular/Ember/Backbone etc, but I'm not sure that argument can be leveraged anymore. I think React is a culmination of some great ideas, but in my view this is a big step back. Especially since Angular/Ember/etc. offer a lot…

[deleted]

Re: React v15.0

#90

Post by Veratyr »

cloudjacker wrote: post #70
_uhtu wrote: post #19

Is there a reason why the file size has exploded? react.min.js is now 145.4kb. For comparioson, angular.min.js is 155.2kb. One of React's biggest selling points was that it was much smaller than Angular/Ember/Backbone etc, but I'm not sure that argument can be leveraged anymore. I think React is a culmination of some great ideas, but in my view this is a big step back. Especially since Angular/Ember/etc. offer a lot…

Can you elaborate why anyone should care? Is this related to the bandwidth costs you incur in aggregate? I guess I too would be mad after converting all of my image assets into vector and CSS3 concoctions only to have my site size foiled by a dependency. But in reality one image is much larger than this.

On mobile and in most of the world where fast internet isn't ubiquitous, cutting down on the size of your page can make your users' experience much better. It's hard to do that when your dependencies get bigger.
Post reply on HN