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 i

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.