11 ms·
> React's design is bad. I could give you a lot of specifics—separation of concerns, coupling views with models, the focus on needless optimizations, the import
by dfabulich 10y ago
> React's design is bad. I could give you a lot of specifics—separation of concerns, coupling views with models, the focus on needless optimizations, the importance of supporting open standards—but I'm going to tell you a story, instead.
The "story" is that Flipboard made React Canvas. The author wants me to think that this is bad in some way, but doesn't say how, except that it's tied to React.
But without saying what's bad about React, he hasn't actually conveyed anything bad about React Canvas, either.
In the second half of the article, the author argues that we should prefer Web Components to React, which is like comparing apples to barrels.
https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/webcomponents.html https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/webcomponents.html
> Trying to compare and contrast React with WebComponents inevitably results in specious conclusions, because the two libraries are built to solve different problems. WebComponents provide strong encapsulation for reusable components, while React provides a declarative library that keeps the DOM in sync with your data. The two goals are complementary; engineers can mix-and-match the technologies. As a developer, you are free to use React in your WebComponents, or to use WebComponents in React, or both.
- rootlocus 10y ago> The "story" is that Flipboard made React Canvas. The author wants me to think that this is bad in some way, but doesn't say how, except that it's tied to React. He says Flipboard could've contributed to the core of the browser to add the smooth scrolling feature instead of writing a framework. > Instead of contributing to various efforts to speed DOM rendering, Flipboard decided to write their own canvas-based rendering engine.