3 ms·
I find this "everything old is new again" such a tiring take. Sure, you can do things you could already do in Rails, but without giving up on the things people
by Vinnl 5y ago
I find this "everything old is new again" such a tiring take. Sure, you can do things you could already do in Rails, but without giving up on the things people adopted React for. Like client-side updates without full page refreshes.
If you fool yourself into thinking that a few similarities to what you're used to means that there's nothing new to learn, you're missing out.
(To be clear, I'm not saying that everything new is automatically better, or that even Remix is. I'm saying that it's foolish to dismiss something without trying to understand what it brings to the table that you've not experienced yet.)
- ratww 5y agoI don't disagree, but saying that people adopted React because of things like "client-side updates without full page refreshes" kinda walks right into the GP's trap: doing it it was already possible with Rails several years before React, with PJAX and then Turbolinks. The reason people adopted React etc was not because of a few specific features, but rather because it was a completely different architecture with different pros and cons. In practice you can do anything React does 100% on a server by sending a video feed to the client + some thin APIs, but it will have different issues and will solve different problems.
- Vinnl 5y agoI was already having doubts about adding an example because I was afraid it would derail the discussion by focusing on the particulars of the example rather than the actual point. So I'll leave it at: sure, but that's irrelevant to the point.
- ratww 5y agoMy point was that the point of Rails vs React isn't about features but rather about architecture. I agree with you, I'm just trying to strengthen your argument.
- pjmlp 5y agoAh you mean DHTML, right.