>I didn't downvote you because I'm "suffering from a lack of imagination" The problem with suffering from a lack of imagination is you don't know you suffer fr

>I didn't downvote you because I'm "suffering from a lack of imagination" The problem with suffering from a lack of imagination is you don't know you suffer from a lack of imagination. The entirety of your comment is devoted to the current and past state of things. JSX is better because "template languages suck ass". You need to "render a h1 or div" to "draw...on a web page" or "add an element to the DOM", etc. So, you're championing one approach because you think it's better than everything else that already exists. That's the definition of a lack of imagination. >Putting another abstraction layer over it to obscure it does jack shit other than make your code more complicated. I doubt you appreciate how many layers of abstraction already exist. But, per your logic we should all be writing assembly code. You have it exactly backwards. There's no reason HTML has to be the target simply because that's what the browser currently consumes. If, tomorrow, browsers "natively" consumed something that was less document-oriented and more idiomatically app-appropriate, then will you understand? Would you be comfortable with coding to that abstraction level? Because everything you touch is essentially running in a VM. These frameworks could easily provide that layer versus the one they provide. So try to get HTML and other "web fundamentals" unstuck from your brain. Imagine languages and platforms for building non-Web (e.g. native) applications and perhaps that will help open your mind a bit. Imagine. In any case, thanks for the comment versus just a silent downvote. FWIW, I upvoted you for that, even though your comment was poorly considered.