3 ms·

This was discussed over on Reddit as well, and Dan Abramov pointed out several issues with the author's writeup and conclusions: https://www.reddit.com/r/react

• mpweiher 8y ago
  Hmm...he didn't actually point out any actual problems with the writeup or conclusions. He admitted that the "core premise" of React, as given by the "Basic Theoretical Concepts" page is wrong: the UI is not, contrary to the "core premise" a "pure" function of the state. He also wrote that React users don't have to deal with all the stuff that is in the concepts. Of course, it was never claimed the React users have to deal with this, so not sure why that is an "issue". On the other hand, the fact that the "concepts" seem so far removed from the realities of React programming and also aren't actually true (see above), makes the whole idea of these things being the react "concepts" at best a bit questionable. He waffles a bit about practicalities, but doesn't seem to understand that once you remove the "pure function" bit, what you are describing is at least conceptually the same as any old MVC framework, except for a bit muddled. In which case it would have been more useful to write "React is an MVC framework with these slight differences due to the fact that we are 'drawing' into a DOM". However, that's not how React is presented.