6 ms·
I'm curious to hear about what gains you saw from dropping it and how you handled rendering
by crossman 11y ago
I'm curious to hear about what gains you saw from dropping it and how you handled rendering
- albemuth 11y agoIt's a single component app and state does not change at all, in fact, we should be skeptical of React too, terrible for static HTML.
- rco8786 11y agoYes, why would anyone ever use react for static html? That's not a reason to be skeptical. That's just picking the wrong tool for the job.
- sotojuan 11y agoMaybe because it's not made for static HTML? Why not just use a templating language?
- paulddraper 11y agoWell React is a templating language. I assume you mean client-side templating.
- clessg 11y agoNo offense, but I see from some of your comments here that you don't understand what React is or why it's different from what came before.
- paulddraper 11y agoSorry for my ignorance, but could you help me by explaining why my comment was wrong? This was in response to > Why not just use a templating language? React is a templating language...or maybe more specifically has a templating language, JSX. You can even run it server side. http://reactjs.net/guides/server-side-rendering.html http://reactjs.net/guides/server-side-rendering.html The problem isn't using React in that situation per se but just that server side templating (React or not) would be a better choice. I assume that's what the commenter meant.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- onewaystreet 11y ago> we should be skeptical of React too, terrible for static HTML It's easy when you use webpack and a static renderer: https://github.com/markdalgleish/static-site-generator-webpack-plugin https://github.com/markdalgleish/static-site-generator-webpa...
- albemuth 11y agoFor the downvoters, this is satire... I'm not the same poster that was 'skeptical' of react router. I have used both libraries and think they're great at what they're intended for.