3 ms·

> The premise is bullshit... there were LOTS of competing options when React first came out... Good thing that wasn't the premise, then. The article is specif

by sfink 1y ago

> The premise is bullshit... there were LOTS of competing options when React first came out... Good thing that wasn't the premise, then. The article is specifically looking at reasons for React's success other than its technical merits. It does not deny that it has merits, nor does it deny that its success is partly due to them. It only says that its current success is no longer wholly due to them, and backs the point up with examples of alternatives that are claimed to be technically superior and that are not achieving success commensurate with that superiority. You can disagree on the superiority claims, you can disagree that innovation in this area is a good thing (many don't!), but I think the main claim is very believable: that in the present day, React's success is heavily helped by its default status.

tracker1 1y ago
Maybe... but it achieved that default status in the first place through a lot of technical merit. It stayed there because it's largely good enough and remains with a lot of inertia, as well as the shear size of the larger community. Just MUI, Mantine and even Bootstrap component libraries are in and of themselves very polished and generally better than any competing technologies. If there was an MUI for Yew/Leptos/Dioxus I'd probably have switched to them and dealt with the minor performance hit with wasm. And yeah, there's component libraries, but not nearly as complete or polished in usage.