3 ms·
I 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
by ratww 5y ago
I 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.