"I disliked the popular thing before it was popular" is not an achievement to take pride in. Heck, most people who picked up React disliked it before using it.
The article states that there are better options now so continuing to use React is not the best choice. This was predicted by most advocates of React fairly early on. The mantra was always: React will be replaced by something better; for the time being that something is still React (i.e. present day React looks very different from the early class-based React).
At the time React started gaining momentum it was simply the best option for what it did. The biggest alternatives were AngularJS (which was known to be a dead end), Angular 2 (which was stuck in Google's cycle of "let's rewrite everything several times because we're not dogfooding this" -- remember that Angular 2 was initially based on `Object.observe`) or the old rusty toolbelt of jQuery, Backbone, Knockout and whatever else was still polluting globals at the time. React eliminated entire categories of bugs at the time and was the first major frontend framework (well, library) to also support server-side rendering.
I think good arguments can be made that e.g. lit-html or htmx is superior to JSX. But at the time those didn't exist and the reason people disliked JSX was that it was different and that it looked like something many had tried before (i.e. VDOMs and XML-ish template DSLs) and that had always ended up sucking. That criticism however came from a place of ignorance (literally "not understanding how it actually works and what it is") and prejudice (i.e. judging by superficial first impressions, not the actual implementation and semantics).
If you think React has uniquely done "so much damage", you either think frontend frameworks in general are inherently bad (which is an entirely valid opinion to have tho I wonder why you think seeking out articles about things you hate just to vent about them is a productive use of anyone's time) or you're being extremely disingenuous with regard to what came before React and what can be considered "React's fault".
I love your comment for the quote "old rusty toolbelt of jQuery, Backbone, Knockout and whatever else was still polluting globals at the time"! In all seriousness though, it might be hard to understand how React felt when it was young for those who missed it or have forgotten. Like with any new technology, those writing about it were involved in its development or early libraries based on React, which improved the signal to noise ratio of the ecosystem considerably. It is not only strictly React that was special, either - with the necessity to 'transpile' React's JSX to ordinary JavaScript came the excuse to use a proper build system, rather than just copying JQuery files into each other, which was the predominant distribution method at the time! Of course, eventually, the build systems themselves were overcomplicated and messy, but at that early stage things like SASS and JSX were very exotic and clever.
> Of course, eventually, the build systems themselves were overcomplicated and messy
True. On the other hand people are now rapidly waking up to the fact that the promised simplicity of having real module systems running in the browser (and ideally federated at that) introduces a ton of complexity (not to mention performance problems) compared to simply having a bundler even when you have to deal with code splitting.
It's also easy to miss how rapidly React influenced the space. Because React was so narrowly defined (i.e. it didn't bring any state management or styling - I remember it being called "just the V in MVC") a ton of other libraries sprung up around it and it even led to a short rise in popularity of otherwise very niche reactive functional programming DSLs and arguably helped sparking interest in reactive programming in general, such as RxJS (which has since seen and ebb and flow of popularity in Angular).
I’ll wait for the “Svelte kind of sucks, and plain old React is fine” article next year before making any decisions (well really I’m waiting for the ‘jquery can do what React and Svelte do believe it or not’ article still).
Where are my AI JS blog post generators at?
Unless …
No can’t be …
There’s no way these articles have been AI generated this whole time … right? RIGHT?
What was bad about React then is the same thing that’s bad about it today: despite the atomic unit of React being a “component”, the best practice was always to re-write your entire fronted in JavaScript, shipping a blank HTML page and forcing the end user to download a megabyte of JavaScript to make their computer write the HTML, for some reason.
And in order to get the “convenience” upgrade over jQuery+backbone or whatever, you had to abandon all existing standards and best practices, making any JavaScript you were using that was not in the style of React useless.
Web components that encapsulate state and interactivity, usable alongside a regular HTML page, were an emerging direction when React shipped and forced everyone to re-write ‘class=‘ to ‘className=‘. And being forced to re-write every app as an SPA was a dumb idea the day people started doing it, even in light of other available approaches.
You’re right that a lot of people hated React before they ever tried it, and they were right, even with the full knowledge of what it was replacing.
> Web components that encapsulate state and interactivity, usable alongside a regular HTML page, were an emerging direction
They weren't. By 2013 web components were still flailing around completely ignoring everyting that was happening in the world and coming up with an unusable and badly design API while crippling a bunch of other things in the process (like forcing C++-like OOP onto prototype-based Javascript)
> when React shipped and forced everyone to re-write ‘class=‘ to ‘className=‘.
> And being forced to re-write every app as an SPA was a dumb idea the day people started doing it, even in light of other available approaches.
What do you think web components are if not a way for people to dump a bunch of Javascript onto a page (and dozens of Javascript-only specs to accompany them)?
> What do you think web components are if not a way for people to dump a bunch of Javascript onto a page (and dozens of Javascript-only specs to accompany them)?
You can get most of what you need onto a web page with HTML. Some components need to be interactive. For that, you need JavaScript. The question is, do you:
1. Keep the rest of the HTML in place, and add JavaScript to that HTML for the interactivity you need (the web components approach)
Or,
2. Re-write the entire web page as a JavaScript “app”, including the parts that are just fine as static HTML, for the “convenience” of the pieces that need interactivity (the React approach)
Both involve “dumping JavaScript onto a page,” sure, but they are totally different approaches.
For a decade, the entire industry picked “2”, and now the internet is a bloated disaster.
You're describing AngularJS, not React. When React hit the scene there were services for "pre-rendering" your AngularJS app for SEO and crawlers. "Rehydration" for server-side rendering was one of the biggest selling points of React.
Heck, even literal Web Components were stuck in that direction. The big reveal of the Web Components implementation in Polymer involved a demo page that was literally an empty HTML page with a single <DemoApp /> custom element node and a massive JS runtime. And that was after React had become popular enough for Googlers to actively heckle React and other libraries on Twitter: #UseThePlatform.
React of course lapsed in server-side rendering eventually because it was not a priority to Facebook and therefore only an afterthought. Arguably the killing blow was Create React App not giving any thought to it at all. But one of the most popular React frameworks is Next, which is now more than 6 years old and is best known for being good at SSR.
The class vs className thing is a silly argument and enough articles have been writing about this that I don't need to reiterate the full argument here but basically the DOM API calls it className (because it wanted to avoid reserved keywords in property names) and most libraries have special-cased "class" to be an alias for "className" or even go out of their way to prevent you from using the actual property name. React actually does less here, not more. The rendered DOM itself (i.e. the HTML sent over the wire in SSR or what you see in your DOM explorer) is no different whether you use JSX where it's called className or a template language that translates "class" to "className" for you.
The article states that there are better options now so continuing to use React is not the best choice. This was predicted by most advocates of React fairly early on. The mantra was always: React will be replaced by something better; for the time being that something is still React (i.e. present day React looks very different from the early class-based React).
At the time React started gaining momentum it was simply the best option for what it did. The biggest alternatives were AngularJS (which was known to be a dead end), Angular 2 (which was stuck in Google's cycle of "let's rewrite everything several times because we're not dogfooding this" -- remember that Angular 2 was initially based on `Object.observe`) or the old rusty toolbelt of jQuery, Backbone, Knockout and whatever else was still polluting globals at the time. React eliminated entire categories of bugs at the time and was the first major frontend framework (well, library) to also support server-side rendering.
I think good arguments can be made that e.g. lit-html or htmx is superior to JSX. But at the time those didn't exist and the reason people disliked JSX was that it was different and that it looked like something many had tried before (i.e. VDOMs and XML-ish template DSLs) and that had always ended up sucking. That criticism however came from a place of ignorance (literally "not understanding how it actually works and what it is") and prejudice (i.e. judging by superficial first impressions, not the actual implementation and semantics).
If you think React has uniquely done "so much damage", you either think frontend frameworks in general are inherently bad (which is an entirely valid opinion to have tho I wonder why you think seeking out articles about things you hate just to vent about them is a productive use of anyone's time) or you're being extremely disingenuous with regard to what came before React and what can be considered "React's fault".