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

Show HN: Under the hood ReactJS

bogdan-lyashenko.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 124 posts

Re: Show HN: Under the hood ReactJS

#91

Post by johnfn »

daliwali wrote: post #29
matthewmacleod wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all phrases I've heard that don't translate to tangible results. Yeah… but they do translate to tangible results. Using something like React helps to make front-end code simple, scalable, fast, and testable. The car analogy is even worse. A modern vehicle is better than a 60s Beetle by almost every conceivable metric – performance, emissions, safety. In both of these cases, it is preposterous to assume that…

These are marketing buzzwords that can be said about every single web framework, effectively thought-terminating cliches. Every fanboy says their preferred framework is the simplest, fastest, most scalable and most testable. In the car analogy the improved performance of modern cars have more to do with mechanical engineering than software. And the analogy falls apart when you consider that modern web frameworks are…

It's not a thought-terminating cliche, though. The problem with learning all this terminology is that you apply it to any viewpoint you don't agree with rather than taking the time to thoroughly consider it.

In this case it doesn't make any sense because people who use React (like me) have taken the time to see whether it matches up to its promises. Quite the opposite of "thought-terminating".

Do you have anything to say about how React was the single most loved library in the Stack Overflow developer's survey? https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2017#technology-mo...

Surely it's not just "thought-terminating cliches" getting it up there; if it were, then Angular would have scored just as high as legions of programmers failed to critically analyze whatever framework they were using.

Hopefully you can understand how your ability to say "everyone else thinks in thought terminating cliches about their favorite framework, including everyone I'm talking with, but that doesn't apply to me" doesn't lead to a reasonable debate.

Re: Show HN: Under the hood ReactJS

#92

Post by [deleted] »

daliwali wrote: post #90
always_good wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being a bit dishonest in these posts. Maybe it's your marketing style and maybe it works, but it puts me off. I even see it in your landing page marketing. > MINIMAL > One function > Its entire API surface area is a single function Then I scroll down. var bindObject = require('simulacra') var bindEvents = bindObject.bindEvents var animate = bindObject.animate var retainElement = bindObject.retainElement

There is actually only one function, that is the one returned from `require('simulacra')`, the others are merely conveniences that are common enough, and `retainElement` is a symbol, not a function. To demarcate this separation better I have considered moving the optional convenience functions into a separate module, which might help clear things up. Edit : actually it seems that you were being dishonest when quoting…

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: Under the hood ReactJS

#93

Post by daliwali »

johnfn wrote: post #91
daliwali wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are marketing buzzwords that can be said about every single web framework, effectively thought-terminating cliches. Every fanboy says their preferred framework is the simplest, fastest, most scalable and most testable. In the car analogy the improved performance of modern cars have more to do with mechanical engineering than software. And the analogy falls apart when you consider that modern web frameworks are…

It's not a thought-terminating cliche, though. The problem with learning all this terminology is that you apply it to any viewpoint you don't agree with rather than taking the time to thoroughly consider it. In this case it doesn't make any sense because people who use React (like me) have taken the time to see whether it matches up to its promises. Quite the opposite of "thought-terminating". Do you have anything to…

Developers are generally not rational people who critically analyze the pros and cons of the technologies that they use. Honestly neither am I, I don't make decisions based solely on objective measures or benchmarks for that matter.

That is why it's called "most loved" and not "best tool to use", it's based on emotions. And this hardly has any relevance unless you're invested in the developer tools market.

Re: Show HN: Under the hood ReactJS

#94

Post by guscost »

daliwali wrote: post #48
jchw wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

React's complexity literally only exists for two reasons: 1. To sidestep problems with the DOM. The virtual DOM helps with performance, and fibers help with responsiveness. 2. To implement reactive components. Virtual DOM makes rebuilding sub trees of the DOM cheap, making it possible to have clean components that don't need to constantly attempt to tweak the DOM. Doing this style of programming without DOM diffing i…

You don't need to rehash the marketing pitch of React here. It's the same old "virtual DOM fast, real DOM slow" that I've heard countless times from fanboys and repeated ad infinitum in any discussion about React. What's missing is that you can make complex web apps without any of these things, or the abstractions used can be something completely different. The reasons you stated just sound like ex-post facto rationa…

Hey if you really feel this way, you might like my new "framework" even more, it does declarative UI in https://github.com/guscost/protozoa

Performance optimizations, cross-browser events, and safety features not included. Good luck if you ever have to build a huge UI with it, you'll be the first person to try!

Seriously though, while it's pretty cool for embedding interactive DOM nodes in a webpage, don't think that you always need "simple" when sometimes "easy" is a much better idea.

Re: Show HN: Under the hood ReactJS

#95

Post by RUTHLESS_RUFUS »

daliwali wrote: post #58
jasode wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that I've heard countless times from fanboys If you're unaware, "fanboys" is a grenade to incite juvenile flamewars instead of collegial discussion. >What's missing is that you can make complex web apps without any of these things, To attempt better instructive discussion instead of arguing from vague and generic platitudes about "needless complexity", can you explain how your simulacra.js (~12kb) is better than rea…

A paragraph of well thought out text will be ignored. A critical remark on the web framework du jour will be carefully deconstructed, rebutted, and shamed. Funny how that works.

If you're taking this personally, you're not going to develop personally from the critical engagement. Remove your ego from the discussion.

Re: Show HN: Under the hood ReactJS

#96

Post by jchw »

daliwali wrote: post #80
mst wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crying "shaming" in response to people pointing out your neither being constructive nor producing a substantive point to engage with is, honestly, rather missing the point of how HN works. The purpose of downvoting is to indicate that your comments mostly consist of assertions that "react is bad" without really making a proper case for it, and as such don't really contribute to the signal of the discussion at hand -…

You missed the first sentence: >A paragraph of well thought out text will be ignored. I don't feel that it is necessary to have to explain in depth why having such a complex architecture for doing a simple task such as manipulating web pages is a bad thing. It would be like having to explain a joke. Moreover, such a critique would hardly be specific to React, but rather all of the current mainstream front-end web fra…

If you've ever compiled Chromium before, you may understand why I don't sympathize with this argument too much. If what we're doing is actually so simple, we lost at step 1.

And maybe, maybe we have.

Re: Show HN: Under the hood ReactJS

#97

Post by RUTHLESS_RUFUS »

daliwali wrote: post #90
always_good wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being a bit dishonest in these posts. Maybe it's your marketing style and maybe it works, but it puts me off. I even see it in your landing page marketing. > MINIMAL > One function > Its entire API surface area is a single function Then I scroll down. var bindObject = require('simulacra') var bindEvents = bindObject.bindEvents var animate = bindObject.animate var retainElement = bindObject.retainElement

There is actually only one function, that is the one returned from `require('simulacra')`, the others are merely conveniences that are common enough, and `retainElement` is a symbol, not a function. To demarcate this separation better I have considered moving the optional convenience functions into a separate module, which might help clear things up. Edit : actually it seems that you were being dishonest when quoting…

I appreciate your attempt, but we don't need any more astronaut-architects. We have the tools.

It's 2017 and high time for JavaScript tooling to finally slow down a bit and settle into its bigger britches.

Re: Show HN: Under the hood ReactJS

#98

Post by daliwali »

RUTHLESS_RUFUS wrote: post #95
daliwali wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A paragraph of well thought out text will be ignored. A critical remark on the web framework du jour will be carefully deconstructed, rebutted, and shamed. Funny how that works.

If you're taking this personally, you're not going to develop personally from the critical engagement. Remove your ego from the discussion.

Why would I take comments from disembodied strangers on the Internet on a personal level, or "develop personally" from people replying only to copy and paste verbatim from marketing, doesn't make sense.

All I did was write the only critical comment in this thread. Everyone else who replied to the OP contributed, "great job, thanks A+".

Re: Show HN: Under the hood ReactJS

#99

Post by TimMurnaghan »

sAbakumoff wrote: post #9
pknopf wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't learn anything by studying other architectures?

This is very specific architecture for a very specific product. I really don't think that I can learn anything from all these UML diagrams. I was just wondering what the author had in mind.

Still not really a UML diagram. It's a flow chart. Of course if javascript programmers encapsulated things with actual objects then maybe UML would be applicable.

Re: Show HN: Under the hood ReactJS

#100

Post by daliwali »

RUTHLESS_RUFUS wrote: post #97
daliwali wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is actually only one function, that is the one returned from `require('simulacra')`, the others are merely conveniences that are common enough, and `retainElement` is a symbol, not a function. To demarcate this separation better I have considered moving the optional convenience functions into a separate module, which might help clear things up. Edit : actually it seems that you were being dishonest when quoting…

I appreciate your attempt, but we don't need any more astronaut-architects. We have the tools. It's 2017 and high time for JavaScript tooling to finally slow down a bit and settle into its bigger britches.

>Astronaut-architects

Facebook can come out with a project that's over 40k lines of code, and it is "extremely simple". But no, it is me with my little 5kb function who is the "astronaut-architect".

>It's 2017

I don't care what year it is, you act like the current frameworks are the only viable options in the future. Hint: they aren't.

Post reply on HN