4 ms·

The first paragraph wasn't uncivil. He said that he didn't read past the first few sentences of the article: "That the author kind of misses this point makes m

by timr 11y ago

The first paragraph wasn't uncivil. He said that he didn't read past the first few sentences of the article: "That the author kind of misses this point makes me pay less attention to the rest of the post." If they had read the rest of the post, they would have seen that their argument was addressed. You're being unfair here. The top-rated comment is from someone mischaracterizing the piece, saying he didn't read it...and you're calling me out for pointing that out.

dang 11y ago
I don't see that. Actually the only bit that seems uncivil to me is just "You just didn't read past the sentence you quoted." You can't know that, and such statements are the internet comment equivalent of elbowing.
- timr 11y ago
  I was responding to the last line of his comment, coupled with the fact that the comment completely mischaracterized the article based on a single line, early in the piece. I admit that the last line is unnecessary. I'll remove it.
  - d0m 11y ago
    (I didn't downvote you, I really don't mind, but it did sound aggressive). Here's what you wrote: >> Too bad. The author addressed everything you said. You just didn't read past the sentence you quoted. >> Nowhere does the piece imply that you should render every state change server-side. In fact, it goes on to show, with specific examples, of how you can get data-binding and partial-update behavior with web-native APIs. The argument is that most people don't need React, not that they don't need AJAX or data binding. Here's a political rewrite (Keep in mind I'm not a native english speaker): It seems that the author addressed your points later in the article. For instance, rather than rendering every state change on the server-side, it explains how you can get data-binding and partial-update behavior with web-native APIS. The main argument of the article is that most people don't need React, not necessarily that they don't need AJAX or data binding.

by timr 11y ago

dang 11y ago

I don't see that. Actually the only bit that seems uncivil to me is just "You just didn't read past the sentence you quoted." You can't know that, and such statements are the internet comment equivalent of elbowing.

timr 11y ago
I was responding to the last line of his comment, coupled with the fact that the comment completely mischaracterized the article based on a single line, early in the piece. I admit that the last line is unnecessary. I'll remove it.
- d0m 11y ago
  (I didn't downvote you, I really don't mind, but it did sound aggressive). Here's what you wrote: >> Too bad. The author addressed everything you said. You just didn't read past the sentence you quoted. >> Nowhere does the piece imply that you should render every state change server-side. In fact, it goes on to show, with specific examples, of how you can get data-binding and partial-update behavior with web-native APIs. The argument is that most people don't need React, not that they don't need AJAX or data binding. Here's a political rewrite (Keep in mind I'm not a native english speaker): It seems that the author addressed your points later in the article. For instance, rather than rendering every state change on the server-side, it explains how you can get data-binding and partial-update behavior with web-native APIS. The main argument of the article is that most people don't need React, not necessarily that they don't need AJAX or data binding.