4 ms·

Good thing then that React is a library and not a framework. :) (only slight sarcasm)

• undecisive 6y ago
  Exactly! The problem is, when do you consider a library more than a library though? And when do you consider yourself more bound to the "framework" than not? I'd say given the way that react completely inverts the way you structure the code you write, that's more of a framework packaged in a library. It's not a library you can just move away from (unless you like writing DOM compilers in your spare time, or you plan to move to one of the clones written by people who like writing DOM compilers in their spare time). Do we consider Ruby on Rails a framework? And if so (because the site makes the distinction...) is it the kind we should only use until we can "code without it"? What about in Java-land, Spring or Struts or Hibernate (or even Swing, though that comes packaged with Java so maybe isn't included in the question) - should these be avoided or embraced? (for reasons other than the horror show that each might be)? And then there's PHP frameworks - too numerous to number, but given the pain of trying to write secure PHP code definitely worth considering - do the security benefits outweigh the risks? I feel like the summary of the original post is "Know your stack" - and that's a great message - but the page conflates Frameworks (which are generally a good thing to use at least until you reach guru status) with spurious libraries that do next to nothing yet introduce another attack vector. I'm all for developing apps with fewer dependencies - libraries or frameworks. Totally against developing apps without frameworks.