2 ms·

React is better at enabling planning and architecture; that's part of its job. That was explicitly not part of jQuery's job. jQuery was a tool to be used as par

React is better at enabling planning and architecture; that's part of its job. That was explicitly not part of jQuery's job. jQuery was a tool to be used as part of a larger strategy. Lots of people chose to ignore that part of their code, and paid the price. I like JSX quite a bit as well; IMO creating an artificial separation between presentation and behavior is not a useful way to think about web apps. Separating data from presentation and behavior is fine, and is a long-standing GUI tradition.

pests 10y ago
I think we're really in agreement about everything. The tools have intended jobs; some people use them incorrectly or without regard to best-practices. Both have different strengths and failure modes. I would say JSX and the separation of presentation / behavior is orthogonal. JSX is just a Javascript powered embedded SGML-like document. The combining of presentation and behavior is caused by render() being defined inline with implementation. You can not use JSX by using ReactDOM directly or a templating library while still keeping render() inlined. Or you can move render() to another class (or subclassed, or HOC, whatever) and separate the presentation and behavior with or without JSX.