3 ms·

Thanks for feedback. I agree I got too defensive, so I edited the post to be less flippant. (Didn’t expect it to jump to HN in an hour.) I do use emojis all th

Thanks for feedback. I agree I got too defensive, so I edited the post to be less flippant. (Didn’t expect it to jump to HN in an hour.) I do use emojis all the time in personal communication but I guess it doesn't read very well so I removed them. The question about components wasn’t meant to be an insult but I can understand how one could see it that way, so I removed it. Sorry!

throwawaymaroon 10y ago
A bigger concern for me is the grating cheerfulness in what is a very critical article. Don't pretend you're not fighting fire with fire with this article. You're mad and you're showing it. When you say stuff like... >>To sum up, I love that you brought up these concerns in an article. I don't believe you! Disingenuous. (You should also think about whether or not the Riot.js author is worth responding to. Just because he's a framework author doesn't mean that framework has ever been held in high regard.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- danabramov 10y ago
  My motivation was to address common misconceptions around React ecosystem. I'm genuinely happy people bring them up (since that's how we learn about the issues). To me, reading posts filled with frustration serves as a motivation to improve things. I didn't reply to "fight with fire": I see these kinds of posts every week or two. But I replied this time because I think it was also important to separate real issues from the factual inaccuracies (that get a life of their own once somebody writes an article). Some bitterness did come through, and I removed it. But I'm not lying when I tell you I'm happy people are sharing their concerns with React. It's all for the best. :-)
  - throwawaymaroon 10y ago
    "inaccuracies." this is your opportunity to pointedly not listen to criticism about the React ecosystem, which you are taking in full. if you were really motivated to improve things you wouldn't need to write a defensive article. you and your team will continue on your status quo. why? because you're not able to fix the problems with react router. you're not able to solve the MVC/total solution ecosystem conundrum React has. you're completely unable to address the core criticisms of the critical article. better to admit that than pretend. so what we have here is another technologist fighting with mud while loudly proclaiming that they're not fighting, we're all friends, 'it's all for the best.' ...As I said. Disingenuous.
yladiz 10y ago
Hey Dan, thanks for replying back to me! The main reason that I felt it was strange was that it didn't feel like your personal post, which I feel warranted more professional/reserved writing. The way the current post is written is a lot better (it also does feel more like a personal blog post now), and I appreciate you took the time to rewrite it when you didn't have to. It really has a different tone now, and now that feels a lot less defensive and flippant wrt the original post. Thanks for all the work on React, excited to check out React 16!

throwawaymaroon 10y ago

A bigger concern for me is the grating cheerfulness in what is a very critical article. Don't pretend you're not fighting fire with fire with this article. You're mad and you're showing it. When you say stuff like... >>To sum up, I love that you brought up these concerns in an article. I don't believe you! Disingenuous. (You should also think about whether or not the Riot.js author is worth responding to. Just because he's a framework author doesn't mean that framework has ever been held in high regard.)

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
danabramov 10y ago
My motivation was to address common misconceptions around React ecosystem. I'm genuinely happy people bring them up (since that's how we learn about the issues). To me, reading posts filled with frustration serves as a motivation to improve things. I didn't reply to "fight with fire": I see these kinds of posts every week or two. But I replied this time because I think it was also important to separate real issues from the factual inaccuracies (that get a life of their own once somebody writes an article). Some bitterness did come through, and I removed it. But I'm not lying when I tell you I'm happy people are sharing their concerns with React. It's all for the best. :-)
- throwawaymaroon 10y ago
  "inaccuracies." this is your opportunity to pointedly not listen to criticism about the React ecosystem, which you are taking in full. if you were really motivated to improve things you wouldn't need to write a defensive article. you and your team will continue on your status quo. why? because you're not able to fix the problems with react router. you're not able to solve the MVC/total solution ecosystem conundrum React has. you're completely unable to address the core criticisms of the critical article. better to admit that than pretend. so what we have here is another technologist fighting with mud while loudly proclaiming that they're not fighting, we're all friends, 'it's all for the best.' ...As I said. Disingenuous.

yladiz 10y ago

Hey Dan, thanks for replying back to me! The main reason that I felt it was strange was that it didn't feel like your personal post, which I feel warranted more professional/reserved writing. The way the current post is written is a lot better (it also does feel more like a personal blog post now), and I appreciate you took the time to rewrite it when you didn't have to. It really has a different tone now, and now that feels a lot less defensive and flippant wrt the original post. Thanks for all the work on React, excited to check out React 16!