4 ms·

I won't disagree. But from a business point of view, it makes a lot of sense to use React. It's support from a huge organization like fb, and mass adoption by t

by bahador 11y ago

I won't disagree. But from a business point of view, it makes a lot of sense to use React. It's support from a huge organization like fb, and mass adoption by the community, make it a safe choice to use in the long term, from a business point of view. Not only will it continue to be supported by a well funded engineering organization, but the pool of developers with experience with it is large. As for Redux, I'm more of a Alt.js kind of engineer. All that being said, Cycle and Elm are totally cool.

fweespeech 11y ago
> it continue to be supported by a well funded engineering organization People thought that with Cassandra too. Its not a safe bet to trust in a single well funded engineering organization. Cassandra really only survived because Netflix, Datastax, Apache, etc. picked up the torch when FB dropped it. That said, its still safer than the OP's suggestion.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- mbrock 11y ago
  No, the "PATENTS" file cannot revoke the "LICENSE" file. React's license is BSD. The PATENTS file additionally ensures that Facebook grants you a license for any patents they might have on technology that's in React. This grant—not the copyright license—expires if you sue Facebook, which is pretty standard for a patent grant. Note also this clause: > Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement against you in the first instance, and you respond by filing a patent infringement counterclaim in that lawsuit against that party that is unrelated to the Software, the license granted hereunder will not terminate under section (i) of this paragraph due to such counterclaim. Please don't claim that the BSD license is revoked if you sue Facebook, and please read more carefully before you make claims of that nature... because not doing so leads to FUD, and also endless confused and uninteresting threads, as has happened in so many previous React threads.
  - sisk 11y ago
    Additionally, the thread OP linked to was outdated—from before they change to clearer verbiage. https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-our-open-source-patent-grant/ https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-ou...
  - pacnw 11y ago
    I think if you're in a lawsuit war with Facebook, whether you lose license to use React or not is probably the least of your worries...
rebelidealist 11y ago
It's true that Angular and React are supported by huge corporations. It also means that they will tailor these libraries for their mega scale usecases. The problems that Google and FB is trying to solve at their unique mega scale is rarely the issues that startups and medium sized companies are facing. Flux and Graphsql comes to mind. For example micro-services are great for Amazon but may add more complexity to tech team that are less than 50 people.
- EvanPlaice 11y ago
  The benefit, even for small applications is reusability. I have already published a <ng-markdown> component to GitHub that can be installed via JSPM and imported as an ES6-module. The new module and web component standard are going to completely change the nature of how web applications will be built in the future. Unfortunately, it'll be a few years until both standards are natively supported across all browsers. Until then, web component frameworks like React, Ember, and Angular2 are the best alternative. If you don't like frameworks, you can use polymer to as a web component polyfill but I've heard it adds a lot of overhead for what it provides and has some quirks of its own.
addicted 11y ago
Being backed by a huge organization did not stop Angular from basically throwing away their stack with 2.0. Although, to be fair, unlike Google with Angular, FB (more often Instagram) is actually dogfooding React and using it on their own stack. And with react-native they've invested a lot more in React tech than Google has in Angular.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ry_ry 11y ago
  Isn't react the actual result of FB's development, whilst angular (1 granted) was at least partially built prior to bring picked up by Google?
sotojuan 11y ago
I feel the same about what to learn to get a job (I'm a college senior). I like the ideas behind Cycle better (and in fact I am using Cycle in my senior thesis), but job-wise I cannot ignore React/Redux/React Native. Fortunately I don't dislike those; I just like Cycle better.
mrspeaker 11y ago
Yep - if you chose to develop something by paradigm alone we'd all be using PureScript: but there's so much more that's necessary to make something that needs to be around for 5+ years. Having FB dog-fooding and putting so much resources behind it is comforting and gives an acceptable trade-off of paradigm vs practical-ness. Until Elm/Cycle/whatever's next have been around for along time and become established then to pick a framework to base a serious project on you're in the "two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses" category.
- davnn 11y ago
  That's so true. Kudos.

by bahador 11y ago

fweespeech 11y ago

> it continue to be supported by a well funded engineering organization People thought that with Cassandra too. Its not a safe bet to trust in a single well funded engineering organization. Cassandra really only survived because Netflix, Datastax, Apache, etc. picked up the torch when FB dropped it. That said, its still safer than the OP's suggestion.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mbrock 11y ago
No, the "PATENTS" file cannot revoke the "LICENSE" file. React's license is BSD. The PATENTS file additionally ensures that Facebook grants you a license for any patents they might have on technology that's in React. This grant—not the copyright license—expires if you sue Facebook, which is pretty standard for a patent grant. Note also this clause: > Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement against you in the first instance, and you respond by filing a patent infringement counterclaim in that lawsuit against that party that is unrelated to the Software, the license granted hereunder will not terminate under section (i) of this paragraph due to such counterclaim. Please don't claim that the BSD license is revoked if you sue Facebook, and please read more carefully before you make claims of that nature... because not doing so leads to FUD, and also endless confused and uninteresting threads, as has happened in so many previous React threads.
- sisk 11y ago
  Additionally, the thread OP linked to was outdated—from before they change to clearer verbiage. https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-our-open-source-patent-grant/ https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-ou...
- pacnw 11y ago
  I think if you're in a lawsuit war with Facebook, whether you lose license to use React or not is probably the least of your worries...

rebelidealist 11y ago

It's true that Angular and React are supported by huge corporations. It also means that they will tailor these libraries for their mega scale usecases. The problems that Google and FB is trying to solve at their unique mega scale is rarely the issues that startups and medium sized companies are facing. Flux and Graphsql comes to mind. For example micro-services are great for Amazon but may add more complexity to tech team that are less than 50 people.

EvanPlaice 11y ago
The benefit, even for small applications is reusability. I have already published a <ng-markdown> component to GitHub that can be installed via JSPM and imported as an ES6-module. The new module and web component standard are going to completely change the nature of how web applications will be built in the future. Unfortunately, it'll be a few years until both standards are natively supported across all browsers. Until then, web component frameworks like React, Ember, and Angular2 are the best alternative. If you don't like frameworks, you can use polymer to as a web component polyfill but I've heard it adds a lot of overhead for what it provides and has some quirks of its own.

addicted 11y ago

Being backed by a huge organization did not stop Angular from basically throwing away their stack with 2.0. Although, to be fair, unlike Google with Angular, FB (more often Instagram) is actually dogfooding React and using it on their own stack. And with react-native they've invested a lot more in React tech than Google has in Angular.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ry_ry 11y ago
Isn't react the actual result of FB's development, whilst angular (1 granted) was at least partially built prior to bring picked up by Google?

sotojuan 11y ago

I feel the same about what to learn to get a job (I'm a college senior). I like the ideas behind Cycle better (and in fact I am using Cycle in my senior thesis), but job-wise I cannot ignore React/Redux/React Native. Fortunately I don't dislike those; I just like Cycle better.

mrspeaker 11y ago

Yep - if you chose to develop something by paradigm alone we'd all be using PureScript: but there's so much more that's necessary to make something that needs to be around for 5+ years. Having FB dog-fooding and putting so much resources behind it is comforting and gives an acceptable trade-off of paradigm vs practical-ness. Until Elm/Cycle/whatever's next have been around for along time and become established then to pick a framework to base a serious project on you're in the "two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses" category.

davnn 11y ago
That's so true. Kudos.