4 ms·
> Bunches of bugs are eliminated and others are easier to find. Got a link to the research for that? My pet peeve is unsubstantiated bullshit claims. We let
by deckard1 10y ago
> Bunches of bugs are eliminated and others are easier to find.
Got a link to the research for that?
My pet peeve is unsubstantiated bullshit claims. We let sooooo much nonsense fly, especially in JS land.
- marshalltony 10y agoI will go write a blog post on medium claiming some research I did and link to it. The stuff I read on here makes me never want to come back to this website again.
- dangoor 10y agoI don't know if Facebook has done any formal studies. Here's one way to think about it: if you have a webapp and have state in JS objects that you have to synchronize with the DOM, that generally takes a fair bit of code. React provided an approach for eliminating synchronization code entirely. My own experience and that of the many others that created webapps pre-React and then adopted it is that its model simplifies our work and removes bugs. That's why we use it. It's also why there are a bunch of other vdom libraries and Ember and Angular have both moved toward similar one-way data flow models. There's a lot that we do day-to-day that doesn't have research to back it up. At some point, we have to try things out for ourselves to see how they work for us.
- cageface 10y agoAnecdotally I can certainly back this up from my own experience. My React based UIs are so much easier to build and maintain than the jQuery stuff they replaced.
- kentor 10y agoYou can ask for research and proof sure, but it should be very intuitive that a delcarative, "re-render everything from props and state with a call to setState()" system is less error prone than the two way binding digest mess that is angular, or manual dom manipulations for that matter. Reminder: VirtualDOM is just an optimization of the rerender everything problem.