3 ms·

I'm having trouble understanding what this accomplished, other than making the react (or I guess redux in this case) team look petty. I agreed with the origina

I'm having trouble understanding what this accomplished, other than making the react (or I guess redux in this case) team look petty. I agreed with the original post and this reply didn't sway me. I see in this thread that people who had already disagreed with the original post agreed with this, as expected. Seriously, nobody not called Linus Torvalds should be writing direct replies to criticism of their technology in blog posts (and he's the only exception because reading his replies is very entertaining). Yes, people like their technology and like how it is, it makes sense for them but, that's not universal; so addressing criticism (even as an attempt of countering the criticism) only legitimizes it. If one doesn't want to acknowledge that one's technology is not for everyone... one is better off not acknowledging it, in any way; doing otherwise puts that shortsightedness in evidence.

danabramov 9y ago
Thanks for feedback, I just edited to include the reason I wrote this: >Your post includes a lot of 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. I didn't reply to many similar posts before, but I felt like this is a good opportunity to jump in and provide some clarifications because there are some factual misconceptions in the post. When unaddressed, these tend to keep spreading and get a life of their own. Also, we do take this feedback to the heart. In fact we spent time developing Create React App precisely thanks to feedback like this. >If one doesn't want to acknowledge that one's technology is not for everyone. We totally acknowledge React is not for everyone! I touched on this in the last paragraph, but it wasn’t the focus of my article. I do try to stress it when comparing React to other libraries in general, but this seemed like a React-specific post.
- dentemple 9y ago
  Thank you for your efforts! As a React developer, I also raised an eyebrow at the misconceptions given in the original article. (The worst, IMO, was definitely the part regarding Create React App and the overall toolchain). I appreciate your take on the article and felt that you did a good job focusing on these issues, whereas someone like myself would've been a bit more biting in my response.
armandososa 9y ago
How is setting the record straight petty? People are entitled to their opinion, but spreading false (or incomplete) information is just wrong.
- julianmarq 9y ago
  Replying at all and in such a passive aggressive tone is petty. If you're confident in your technology (and people making something as widely used as react/redux ought to be confident), you can let it speak for itself. As for how much this actually set the record straight or how much the original post was false information, I guess I'll have to disagree. Nothing in the original post was false per se, and I, for one, agreed with everything in it, every time I've tried to get into react since it was launched and it's always the same annoyances. It's just not for me and it's not for the author of the original post. Two different points in OP's reply were "well yeah, but it'll be different in the next version/future!" (amusingly, another point was "well, just don't use the new version!") which means that the original post was... right.
  - Sacho 9y ago
    > Nothing in the original post was false per se, You mean besides: "I started my app with React 15.5.0 knowing that my code is deprecate before even starting" (addressed by dan) "in mobx you can prefix your store actions but “it’s just for the glam” because it won’t preserve overriding any observable property of your store as it was a normal object store.message = ‘hello’ from any component of your application!?!" (strict mode, right there on the page he even links to) "React-router is not officially maintained by facebook and the maintainers had the great idea of bumping 3 major versions in 5 months completely not backward compatible to each other" (in the link he provides, you can see version 4 was released 03.2017, version 3 was released 10.2016, version 2 was released 02.2016. Even a charitable reading of "bumping 3 major versions" doesn't get you to 5 months) I could only find one more assertion of fact, rather than opinion, which happens to be right: "Once I understood what was the issue I was dragged into the rabbit hole being forced to add empty divs all over the place to let my app work properly" However, it's also fixed in the next release.
plandis 9y ago
Yeah agreed. This react dev seems incredibly petty and even worse makes it seem like they just won't take community feedback. I've never used React (but have considered it) and this post just really turns me off from even bothering.
- danabramov 9y ago
  I'm sorry this is the impression my post has left for you. Could you clarify which parts you see as petty so I could further work on them? I thought it was important to clarify the factual mistakes (such as the misconception about React rewrite), as these tend to keep spreading once they're mentioned in a few articles. But I see now that I might have chosen the wrong venue and format to address them, as framing it as a response makes it seem personal. That wasn't my intention.

danabramov 9y ago

Thanks for feedback, I just edited to include the reason I wrote this: >Your post includes a lot of 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. I didn't reply to many similar posts before, but I felt like this is a good opportunity to jump in and provide some clarifications because there are some factual misconceptions in the post. When unaddressed, these tend to keep spreading and get a life of their own. Also, we do take this feedback to the heart. In fact we spent time developing Create React App precisely thanks to feedback like this. >If one doesn't want to acknowledge that one's technology is not for everyone. We totally acknowledge React is not for everyone! I touched on this in the last paragraph, but it wasn’t the focus of my article. I do try to stress it when comparing React to other libraries in general, but this seemed like a React-specific post.

dentemple 9y ago
Thank you for your efforts! As a React developer, I also raised an eyebrow at the misconceptions given in the original article. (The worst, IMO, was definitely the part regarding Create React App and the overall toolchain). I appreciate your take on the article and felt that you did a good job focusing on these issues, whereas someone like myself would've been a bit more biting in my response.

armandososa 9y ago

How is setting the record straight petty? People are entitled to their opinion, but spreading false (or incomplete) information is just wrong.

julianmarq 9y ago
Replying at all and in such a passive aggressive tone is petty. If you're confident in your technology (and people making something as widely used as react/redux ought to be confident), you can let it speak for itself. As for how much this actually set the record straight or how much the original post was false information, I guess I'll have to disagree. Nothing in the original post was false per se, and I, for one, agreed with everything in it, every time I've tried to get into react since it was launched and it's always the same annoyances. It's just not for me and it's not for the author of the original post. Two different points in OP's reply were "well yeah, but it'll be different in the next version/future!" (amusingly, another point was "well, just don't use the new version!") which means that the original post was... right.
- Sacho 9y ago
  > Nothing in the original post was false per se, You mean besides: "I started my app with React 15.5.0 knowing that my code is deprecate before even starting" (addressed by dan) "in mobx you can prefix your store actions but “it’s just for the glam” because it won’t preserve overriding any observable property of your store as it was a normal object store.message = ‘hello’ from any component of your application!?!" (strict mode, right there on the page he even links to) "React-router is not officially maintained by facebook and the maintainers had the great idea of bumping 3 major versions in 5 months completely not backward compatible to each other" (in the link he provides, you can see version 4 was released 03.2017, version 3 was released 10.2016, version 2 was released 02.2016. Even a charitable reading of "bumping 3 major versions" doesn't get you to 5 months) I could only find one more assertion of fact, rather than opinion, which happens to be right: "Once I understood what was the issue I was dragged into the rabbit hole being forced to add empty divs all over the place to let my app work properly" However, it's also fixed in the next release.

plandis 9y ago

Yeah agreed. This react dev seems incredibly petty and even worse makes it seem like they just won't take community feedback. I've never used React (but have considered it) and this post just really turns me off from even bothering.

danabramov 9y ago
I'm sorry this is the impression my post has left for you. Could you clarify which parts you see as petty so I could further work on them? I thought it was important to clarify the factual mistakes (such as the misconception about React rewrite), as these tend to keep spreading once they're mentioned in a few articles. But I see now that I might have chosen the wrong venue and format to address them, as framing it as a response makes it seem personal. That wasn't my intention.