4 ms·

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. Yo

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 9y ago
[deleted]
danabramov 9y 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 9y 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.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

danabramov 9y 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 9y 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.