4 ms·

I'm on the React team and momentarily read this the same way you did. It probably could have been clearer, but I think I don't think number of components here i

by spicyj 9y ago

I'm on the React team and momentarily read this the same way you did. It probably could have been clearer, but I think I don't think number of components here is meant to be an accomplishment. Rather, it just means that we've done the work of testing compatibility already on a gigantic codebase so there's a good chance that most other apps will work out of the box.

Bahamut 9y ago
How does testing work within FB, and how much of the frontend is tested? I don't think I have seen much on how FB does testing out there, and I have a good friend who complained about lack of tests at FB (he got called about his code change breaking the spam filter at midnight, and was pissed because there were no tests so he wasn't able to guarantee something like that wouldn't happen). I only ask out of curiosity, it'd be good to know how FB approached testing as a data point on a major company's approach (vs. say Google)
- danabramov 9y ago
  I can't say much about Google, but at FB we have a combination of unit tests and integration tests. We don't strive to have 100% coverage, but the amount of tests is always growing, and we are investing effort into efficient tooling for running thousands of front-end tests: http://facebook.github.io/jest/ http://facebook.github.io/jest/.
hising 9y ago
My point being, you are doing a great job, if a person is frustrated over some tech and writes a blog post or whatever about it, maybe you should just leave it with that? Coming out defending design decisions etc just leaves a foul taste. React is awesome, but maybe it is not for everyone?
- acemarke 9y ago
  It's definitely not for everyone, but it would be nice for people to make that decision based on accurate information. There is unfortunately a lot of FUD that has been spread around React in general, the React ecosystem, and the upcoming React Fiber rewrite. It's a combination of longstanding complaints like "HTML in my JS? EWW!", concerns about build tools like Babel and Webpack, badly written articles and headlines like the recent TechCrunch post that claimed "React Fiber is a complete change that Facebook has never talked about", and of course lots of arguments in comment sections. If someone has taken time to evaluate React and determined that it's not for them, that's totally fine. But, when poor articles get upvoted and spread widely, it doesn't help anyone.
- danabramov 9y ago
  Thanks for feedback! I edited the article to remove those sentences, as indeed I can see how it can be seen as aggressive (that wasn't my intention, and Ben's interpretation is correct). Regarding the motivation, it wasn't to defend any decisions. I'm sorry I didn't make this clear enough. The motivation for replying was to highlight some factual inaccuracies that have started to gain traction. I see posts like this every other week, and I've noticed a few incorrect points shared between them, so I felt this is a good time to jump in and help clarify them. I could've done it in a better way though. I added these two paragraphs: >Your post includes some misconceptions commonly held in the React community, so I wanted to take a moment to clarify them for everyone else who has the same concerns. >That is not to say that React works well for everyone, or that the issues raised are not valid. But there are a few facts that I think are important to get right before considering those problems.

by spicyj 9y ago

Bahamut 9y ago

How does testing work within FB, and how much of the frontend is tested? I don't think I have seen much on how FB does testing out there, and I have a good friend who complained about lack of tests at FB (he got called about his code change breaking the spam filter at midnight, and was pissed because there were no tests so he wasn't able to guarantee something like that wouldn't happen). I only ask out of curiosity, it'd be good to know how FB approached testing as a data point on a major company's approach (vs. say Google)

danabramov 9y ago
I can't say much about Google, but at FB we have a combination of unit tests and integration tests. We don't strive to have 100% coverage, but the amount of tests is always growing, and we are investing effort into efficient tooling for running thousands of front-end tests: http://facebook.github.io/jest/ http://facebook.github.io/jest/.

hising 9y ago

My point being, you are doing a great job, if a person is frustrated over some tech and writes a blog post or whatever about it, maybe you should just leave it with that? Coming out defending design decisions etc just leaves a foul taste. React is awesome, but maybe it is not for everyone?

acemarke 9y ago
It's definitely not for everyone, but it would be nice for people to make that decision based on accurate information. There is unfortunately a lot of FUD that has been spread around React in general, the React ecosystem, and the upcoming React Fiber rewrite. It's a combination of longstanding complaints like "HTML in my JS? EWW!", concerns about build tools like Babel and Webpack, badly written articles and headlines like the recent TechCrunch post that claimed "React Fiber is a complete change that Facebook has never talked about", and of course lots of arguments in comment sections. If someone has taken time to evaluate React and determined that it's not for them, that's totally fine. But, when poor articles get upvoted and spread widely, it doesn't help anyone.
danabramov 9y ago
Thanks for feedback! I edited the article to remove those sentences, as indeed I can see how it can be seen as aggressive (that wasn't my intention, and Ben's interpretation is correct). Regarding the motivation, it wasn't to defend any decisions. I'm sorry I didn't make this clear enough. The motivation for replying was to highlight some factual inaccuracies that have started to gain traction. I see posts like this every other week, and I've noticed a few incorrect points shared between them, so I felt this is a good time to jump in and help clarify them. I could've done it in a better way though. I added these two paragraphs: >Your post includes some misconceptions commonly held in the React community, so I wanted to take a moment to clarify them for everyone else who has the same concerns. >That is not to say that React works well for everyone, or that the issues raised are not valid. But there are a few facts that I think are important to get right before considering those problems.