2 ms·

This was always the case. React always totally sucked, but you all jumped on the bandwagon instead of using something simpler. It surprises me that they made it

This was always the case. React always totally sucked, but you all jumped on the bandwagon instead of using something simpler. It surprises me that they made it worse over time. But it doesn't surprise me that all the fanaddicts are coming out to defend the newly discovered flaws and complexity, and responding to any criticism not with cool confidence or generous reason, but ideological hysterics. Why'd you ever sign up for React in the first place? Are you now too invested and deluded by sunk cost fallacy to admit your flaw and get out? Just keep sinking more into it. Who does that benefit? Maybe if FB wants to tie up startup competition with convolution...

cryptica 6y ago
It's sad that we live in a time that the truth gets systematically downvoted like this. Many experienced developers had been saying this about React for a long time; it's bloated and over-engineered. Like ORMs; they just keep creating new problems and then inventing new solutions to patch up the old problems and introduce new problems at the same time. It's all about where the capital is. Give me a few million of dollars in marketing budget and I can convince all developers on earth to use Angular 1 (with a different project name).
- browserface 6y ago
  Thanks for saying that. Yeah, it is about this time we live in. It's like the internet was supposed to make us all more open minded to new info, but instead all the unfamiliar-to-each-of-us-info made us all more hard-shelled and narrow minded. So anything not part of our worldview is a scary threat that we need to respond with hostility to. It doesn't matter what's true. It matters what confirms existing biases. Paradoxically I think people used to be more open minded before the internet, because it was safe to be. They weren't swimming in a infinite ocean of unfamiliar new ideas, they could afford to be open without much risk of having to do the hard work of challenging their beliefs and updating their worldview at every turn. It is totally about marketing budget as well. In this age of "outside my worldview is fearful, I must respond with hostility" a consequence is you get more group-think and safety in numbers type behavior. So it is easy with enough capital to create these tribes of zealots for particular stacks. It's not adaptive, it's not true, but that doesn't matter. It's safe and comforting. I just don't wanna work with tools that suck, as I guess you don't too.
  - browserface 6y ago
    Another consequence of this age we live in, that I recently discovered is it's basically impossible to change anyone's mind on the internet. It's not just because it's strangers, or because it's text, tho that does make it harder. It's the dynamic I state above. I used to think it was worth sharing and discussing ideas because maybe I could contribute to somebody else. Now I realize that nobody can change their mind because of what I do. If they somehow did change their mind, they were simply open and ready for it from their own state, and it was accidental that I was involved, it could have been another person or idea. If I bring to them really valuable (as in really surprising) information (the highest quality ideas), the dynamic above ensures they cannot hear it and must respond with hostility. And the lowest quality ideas are ones where people agree with what I say, since those ideas are already widely known. So I have learned to let go of wanting to share my ideas with people online and discuss, or being upset about downvotes. Downvotes mostly indicate quality and entropy. Nowadays I only say what I want for myself...and don't get into discussions, because it's just people trying to prove they're right, prove someone else is wrong, protect their worldview, just pathetic stuff, and I don't want to be part of it.
    - cryptica 6y ago
      True. The main reason I write comments on HN is for the handful of outliers who still understand logic and reason and are not blinded by power or consensus. I only comment on articles where my view is contradictory. I don't comment on the articles which I agree about because that doesn't add any value to society for the exact reasons that you mentioned here. I believe that there are enough intelligent people around to avoid taking us back to the feudal dark ages.
      - browserface 6y ago
        thanks :) ;p xx

cryptica 6y ago

It's sad that we live in a time that the truth gets systematically downvoted like this. Many experienced developers had been saying this about React for a long time; it's bloated and over-engineered. Like ORMs; they just keep creating new problems and then inventing new solutions to patch up the old problems and introduce new problems at the same time. It's all about where the capital is. Give me a few million of dollars in marketing budget and I can convince all developers on earth to use Angular 1 (with a different project name).

browserface 6y ago
Thanks for saying that. Yeah, it is about this time we live in. It's like the internet was supposed to make us all more open minded to new info, but instead all the unfamiliar-to-each-of-us-info made us all more hard-shelled and narrow minded. So anything not part of our worldview is a scary threat that we need to respond with hostility to. It doesn't matter what's true. It matters what confirms existing biases. Paradoxically I think people used to be more open minded before the internet, because it was safe to be. They weren't swimming in a infinite ocean of unfamiliar new ideas, they could afford to be open without much risk of having to do the hard work of challenging their beliefs and updating their worldview at every turn. It is totally about marketing budget as well. In this age of "outside my worldview is fearful, I must respond with hostility" a consequence is you get more group-think and safety in numbers type behavior. So it is easy with enough capital to create these tribes of zealots for particular stacks. It's not adaptive, it's not true, but that doesn't matter. It's safe and comforting. I just don't wanna work with tools that suck, as I guess you don't too.
- browserface 6y ago
  Another consequence of this age we live in, that I recently discovered is it's basically impossible to change anyone's mind on the internet. It's not just because it's strangers, or because it's text, tho that does make it harder. It's the dynamic I state above. I used to think it was worth sharing and discussing ideas because maybe I could contribute to somebody else. Now I realize that nobody can change their mind because of what I do. If they somehow did change their mind, they were simply open and ready for it from their own state, and it was accidental that I was involved, it could have been another person or idea. If I bring to them really valuable (as in really surprising) information (the highest quality ideas), the dynamic above ensures they cannot hear it and must respond with hostility. And the lowest quality ideas are ones where people agree with what I say, since those ideas are already widely known. So I have learned to let go of wanting to share my ideas with people online and discuss, or being upset about downvotes. Downvotes mostly indicate quality and entropy. Nowadays I only say what I want for myself...and don't get into discussions, because it's just people trying to prove they're right, prove someone else is wrong, protect their worldview, just pathetic stuff, and I don't want to be part of it.
  - cryptica 6y ago
    True. The main reason I write comments on HN is for the handful of outliers who still understand logic and reason and are not blinded by power or consensus. I only comment on articles where my view is contradictory. I don't comment on the articles which I agree about because that doesn't add any value to society for the exact reasons that you mentioned here. I believe that there are enough intelligent people around to avoid taking us back to the feudal dark ages.
    - browserface 6y ago
      thanks :) ;p xx