3 ms·
Sorry if this comes across as overly facetious — I’m sure you have a reason for doing it that way! — but would it not be easier just to bow to convention and re
by iainmerrick 7mo ago
Sorry if this comes across as overly facetious — I’m sure you have a reason for doing it that way! — but would it not be easier just to bow to convention and rename your .js files to .jsx?
- vite_throwaway 7mo agoProbably. It's just that I've always used .js for my projects (decades). Such a rename would likely result in configuration changes to the other tools I use, but indeed they are better documented. When faced with a multiplicity of conventions I pick one and stick to it; the tools are flexible enough to work with it I'm sure, the real issue is of discoverability.
- elondaits 7mo agoBut it’s not just convention… JSX files are not valid JS files. Also, as a programmer, I would be annoyed to open a JS file and find out it’s actually something else.