5 ms·

> I can't think of a single product of theirs that hasn't made the world a markedly worse place zstd I’m torn about React and PyTorch :)

by haunter 4mo ago

jazzpush2 4mo ago
They author thousands of open-source. Nobody would consider those 'products' (though feel free to play pedantic). And many would argue React did far more harm than good.
- vintermann 4mo ago
  Without React we might not have had the JavaScript framework explosion, we'd all be programming in Angular JS. Maybe I'm exaggerating slightly, but I think we should judge frameworks compared to what other things existed at the time. It's, by the way, another example of how the only good thing Facebook did was deny Google complete dominance.
  - agrippanux 4mo ago
    React was a godsend vs dealing with the Angular $digest loop
  - calgoo 4mo ago
    We would still have a framework of the week like we do today. There was a new framework weekly before React and there are frameworks of the week after React. React just gave us one more way of showing text on a screen.
    - sd9 4mo ago
      > React just gave us one more way of showing text on a screen. Well, yes, but... its popularity is not completely accidental. It's good - even by today's standards, but certainly by the standards of the time.
      - aitchnyu 4mo ago
        In 2015 I was teaching that React was a lightweight library that simply did function state -> html, codebases were bug-free, snappy and easy to understand. And it was true compared to configuring jQuery listeners the unperformant way into a Rube Goldberg machine of cause and effect.
  - fakedang 4mo ago
    Without React, we might've just used Svelte.
  - DerArzt 4mo ago
    NGL I like modern Angular more than React, but I never experienced v1 of AngularJS so I don't know how much of modern Angular is influenced by React. I like that it's a framework with opinions vs React which is a "Library".
- whizzter 4mo ago
  We would end up with some other (probably worse) JS frameworks instead, JQuery(shudder) was still big, Angular 1 was a glimpse of something but they went for Angular 2+ that changed everything, backbone js, ember js,etc. Vue is probably the only outsider of that age that stayed even somewhat relevant (really by just doing what Angular 1 did but correctly), Angular seems to have kinda survived in some niches but other than that I haven't heard of the other similarly aged frameworks in a long while.
- port11 4mo ago
  As someone working daily with React, I agree. And I wouldn’t consider it a Facebook product at all. The amount of work they offload to the community is substantial.
usefulcat 4mo ago
> zstd Yes, but also “damning with faint praise” immediately comes to mind
colordrops 4mo ago
I've avoided react as much as I could. Maintained a high paying frontend career without react until a year or so ago, when I was forced by management to start using it. Thankfully AI was able to touch it for me while I pinched my nose.
- darkest_ruby 4mo ago
  What was your framework of choice if not react, if you don't mind me asking
  - camillomiller 4mo ago
    I will blow your mind: you don’t necessarily need one
  - colordrops 4mo ago
    Either none, or a thin web component framework.
formerly_proven 4mo ago
zstd was created outside FB, it's an acquihire.
digitaltrees 4mo ago
React made front end suck. Sorry.
- onion2k 4mo ago
  React definitely didn't make frontend _great_ in a lot of cases, but jQuery, mootools, prototype, knockout, ember, angular, and a whole lot more JS frameworks that have come and gone predate React. If React hadn't been invented there'd be just as many poorly developed browser apps as there are today. You can't really pin that on React.
  - archerx 4mo ago
    What I can pin on react is that it is very inefficient with resources using much more cpu power than needed to render some text and images on a webpage. Imagine all the electricity that was wasted because of react and the negative impact on the environment it has had because of that.
    - onion2k 4mo ago
      React doesn't do anything unless the DOM needs to to be updated. Arguably React does have a 'disadvantage' in the sense that it doesn't do two-way data binding, and chooses to update as little of the DOM as necessary to render a change (which it's good at, and gets right), but that's sometimes more than just changing a text node or a value. I suspect that if React hadn't come along there'd be lots of homegrown frameworks doing something similar in a worse way. React is well thought-out and well designed. Also, every reactive framework can have the same problem. It's not a React thing; it's a library-that-tracks-changes-and-updates-the-DOM thing. Used poorly you'll end up in a re-render loop. We could just have static HTML pages and that would eliminate the whole problem, but then we'd be complaining about the electricity used on network roundtrips and people using badly coded desktop apps instead. Ultimately, libraries can be as bulletproof and fool-proof as you like, and developers will find new and novel ways to use them to build crap software. The responsibility (mostly) lies with the developers much more than the library.
59nadir 4mo ago
Corporate open-source (Open Source) is done for free labor and PR, it shouldn't be bonus points for any company that does it, unless they commit to it and pay their contributors, have no CLAs that allow them to relicense the work, or adopt practices and licenses that are clearly more in line with the actual spirit of free software. Real free software that should be considered a public good is produced by people, for people. There are sometimes well meaning people in corporations that do their best to at least get something out there and kudos to them, but corporations running Open Source projects should receive no goodwill for it, it's basically a scam.
- jekekepel 4mo ago
  [dead]
- vintermann 4mo ago
  Well yeah, you shouldn't give much credit to the corporation, but neither should you backlist all applicants who ever worked for them (as OP says some frontier labs do)
  - 59nadir 4mo ago
    I'm not really commenting on that, I just want to remind people that Open Source is highly overrated and should not be looked at as a point in favor of a company.
    - allarm 4mo ago
      While I agree with your point I don't agree that open source is overrated. This movement is one of the greatest developments in modern history, and the fact that corporations have exploited it for their own gain should in no way diminish its significance.
      - 59nadir 4mo ago
        Open Source is the company takeover of the good that Free Software represents, I don't really see it as a "movement" by people. It's set up precisely to exploit the people for free labor and look good doing it.
nchmy 4mo ago
https://jsx.lol https://jsx.lol

> I can't think of a single product of theirs that hasn't made the world a markedly worse place zstd I’m torn about React and PyTorch :)

by haunter 4mo ago

> I can't think of a single product of theirs that hasn't made the world a markedly worse place zstd I’m torn about React and PyTorch :)

jazzpush2 4mo ago

They author thousands of open-source. Nobody would consider those 'products' (though feel free to play pedantic). And many would argue React did far more harm than good.

vintermann 4mo ago
Without React we might not have had the JavaScript framework explosion, we'd all be programming in Angular JS. Maybe I'm exaggerating slightly, but I think we should judge frameworks compared to what other things existed at the time. It's, by the way, another example of how the only good thing Facebook did was deny Google complete dominance.
- agrippanux 4mo ago
  React was a godsend vs dealing with the Angular $digest loop
- calgoo 4mo ago
  We would still have a framework of the week like we do today. There was a new framework weekly before React and there are frameworks of the week after React. React just gave us one more way of showing text on a screen.
  - sd9 4mo ago
    > React just gave us one more way of showing text on a screen. Well, yes, but... its popularity is not completely accidental. It's good - even by today's standards, but certainly by the standards of the time.
    - aitchnyu 4mo ago
      In 2015 I was teaching that React was a lightweight library that simply did function state -> html, codebases were bug-free, snappy and easy to understand. And it was true compared to configuring jQuery listeners the unperformant way into a Rube Goldberg machine of cause and effect.
- fakedang 4mo ago
  Without React, we might've just used Svelte.
- DerArzt 4mo ago
  NGL I like modern Angular more than React, but I never experienced v1 of AngularJS so I don't know how much of modern Angular is influenced by React. I like that it's a framework with opinions vs React which is a "Library".
whizzter 4mo ago
We would end up with some other (probably worse) JS frameworks instead, JQuery(shudder) was still big, Angular 1 was a glimpse of something but they went for Angular 2+ that changed everything, backbone js, ember js,etc. Vue is probably the only outsider of that age that stayed even somewhat relevant (really by just doing what Angular 1 did but correctly), Angular seems to have kinda survived in some niches but other than that I haven't heard of the other similarly aged frameworks in a long while.
port11 4mo ago
As someone working daily with React, I agree. And I wouldn’t consider it a Facebook product at all. The amount of work they offload to the community is substantial.

usefulcat 4mo ago

> zstd Yes, but also “damning with faint praise” immediately comes to mind

colordrops 4mo ago

I've avoided react as much as I could. Maintained a high paying frontend career without react until a year or so ago, when I was forced by management to start using it. Thankfully AI was able to touch it for me while I pinched my nose.

darkest_ruby 4mo ago
What was your framework of choice if not react, if you don't mind me asking
- camillomiller 4mo ago
  I will blow your mind: you don’t necessarily need one
- colordrops 4mo ago
  Either none, or a thin web component framework.

formerly_proven 4mo ago

zstd was created outside FB, it's an acquihire.

digitaltrees 4mo ago

React made front end suck. Sorry.

onion2k 4mo ago
React definitely didn't make frontend _great_ in a lot of cases, but jQuery, mootools, prototype, knockout, ember, angular, and a whole lot more JS frameworks that have come and gone predate React. If React hadn't been invented there'd be just as many poorly developed browser apps as there are today. You can't really pin that on React.
- archerx 4mo ago
  What I can pin on react is that it is very inefficient with resources using much more cpu power than needed to render some text and images on a webpage. Imagine all the electricity that was wasted because of react and the negative impact on the environment it has had because of that.
  - onion2k 4mo ago
    React doesn't do anything unless the DOM needs to to be updated. Arguably React does have a 'disadvantage' in the sense that it doesn't do two-way data binding, and chooses to update as little of the DOM as necessary to render a change (which it's good at, and gets right), but that's sometimes more than just changing a text node or a value. I suspect that if React hadn't come along there'd be lots of homegrown frameworks doing something similar in a worse way. React is well thought-out and well designed. Also, every reactive framework can have the same problem. It's not a React thing; it's a library-that-tracks-changes-and-updates-the-DOM thing. Used poorly you'll end up in a re-render loop. We could just have static HTML pages and that would eliminate the whole problem, but then we'd be complaining about the electricity used on network roundtrips and people using badly coded desktop apps instead. Ultimately, libraries can be as bulletproof and fool-proof as you like, and developers will find new and novel ways to use them to build crap software. The responsibility (mostly) lies with the developers much more than the library.

59nadir 4mo ago

Corporate open-source (Open Source) is done for free labor and PR, it shouldn't be bonus points for any company that does it, unless they commit to it and pay their contributors, have no CLAs that allow them to relicense the work, or adopt practices and licenses that are clearly more in line with the actual spirit of free software. Real free software that should be considered a public good is produced by people, for people. There are sometimes well meaning people in corporations that do their best to at least get something out there and kudos to them, but corporations running Open Source projects should receive no goodwill for it, it's basically a scam.

jekekepel 4mo ago
[dead]
vintermann 4mo ago
Well yeah, you shouldn't give much credit to the corporation, but neither should you backlist all applicants who ever worked for them (as OP says some frontier labs do)
- 59nadir 4mo ago
  I'm not really commenting on that, I just want to remind people that Open Source is highly overrated and should not be looked at as a point in favor of a company.
  - allarm 4mo ago
    While I agree with your point I don't agree that open source is overrated. This movement is one of the greatest developments in modern history, and the fact that corporations have exploited it for their own gain should in no way diminish its significance.
    - 59nadir 4mo ago
      Open Source is the company takeover of the good that Free Software represents, I don't really see it as a "movement" by people. It's set up precisely to exploit the people for free labor and look good doing it.

nchmy 4mo ago

https://jsx.lol https://jsx.lol