I find that strange. For example, I would call Angular or Vue "thick" with their extra templating files and DSLs and two-way binding. I would call React thin b

I find that strange. For example, I would call Angular or Vue "thick" with their extra templating files and DSLs and two-way binding. I would call React thin because the JSX components you build are transparently just objects, they interact with types super gracefully because components are just classes with a method that returns nested objects, and your code is just invoking JS and producing JS until the React library itself performs the side effect of rendering. I understand that React has abstractions and a heavy scheduling engine and all sorts of complexity, but a React component - the core concept of React - reuses directly JS concepts in place of introducing its own in most situations. That is thin. I admit that if you are just thinking of libraries in general, of course a frontend framework is not "thin", but for a library which enables true composability and reuse, React is so thin compared to is competitors. Which seems a reasonable de facto context for a conversation about React.