4 ms·

The rationale for using JSX over plain JS is given here - http://facebook.github.io/jsx/ http://facebook.github.io/jsx/ It's not a case of "new hammer", it's b

The rationale for using JSX over plain JS is given here - http://facebook.github.io/jsx/ http://facebook.github.io/jsx/ It's not a case of "new hammer", it's being used there for the exact reason JSX was invented - "defining tree structures with attributes" in a standard way since "A generic but well defined syntax enables a community of independent parsers and syntax highlighters to conform to a single specification."

skrebbel 12y ago
> The rationale for using JSX over plain JS is given here Are you pulling my leg or did you simply not read any of the two comments I wrote? My first comment even contained last decade's hype to do "everything in XML" as an example of a similar (bad) movement. Your response is to link to an article that describes JSX as an "XML-like syntax extension to JavaScript". I say "don't do everything in JSX just because you can", and your response is "but it's like XML!". I can only deduct that you also like programming in XML. Good for you, I recommend you begin with porting XSLT to JSX.
- ebiester 12y ago
  That sounds like a delicious practical joke.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago
  No. You didn't say those words that you quoted. You're ranting and raving like a lunatic, so maybe you should just take a minute to think about that. XML is not being used "because they can". First of all - they couldn't use XML inline, which is the reason they invented JSX. Then they could. So, they actually went out of their way to use XML. I didn't link to the article so that you could get a description of JSX, you rude jerk. I linked so you could get the reasoning. Unfortunately, you're being a complete asshole so just like, never-mind I guess. Have a nice day! :) (Oh and - You haven't given one valid reason why you think it's a bad idea. Just rubbish appeals to authority. Your rant contains no logic. What's your reasoning? You asked "Why is it an advantage to express a route as XML-like JSX?" and the answer is in the rationale given on the JSX spec page. There are 1,000 ways to put together a JS object. There is one way to put together XML. It's a better, simpler standard that lends itself to better tooling and simpler parsers that don't need to parse the entire JS language.)
  - efuquen 12y ago
    Your response is way ruder then the OP's, way to escalate the situation ... I don't see how it's hard to understand how using a syntax that was designed for rendering UI components for routing might be a bad idea. It's just screams ugly hack all over the place and I could easily see how it would be confusing and overly verbose.
    - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
      XML syntax was not invented for rendering UI components.

skrebbel 12y ago

> The rationale for using JSX over plain JS is given here Are you pulling my leg or did you simply not read any of the two comments I wrote? My first comment even contained last decade's hype to do "everything in XML" as an example of a similar (bad) movement. Your response is to link to an article that describes JSX as an "XML-like syntax extension to JavaScript". I say "don't do everything in JSX just because you can", and your response is "but it's like XML!". I can only deduct that you also like programming in XML. Good for you, I recommend you begin with porting XSLT to JSX.

ebiester 12y ago
That sounds like a delicious practical joke.
WorldWideWayne 12y ago
No. You didn't say those words that you quoted. You're ranting and raving like a lunatic, so maybe you should just take a minute to think about that. XML is not being used "because they can". First of all - they couldn't use XML inline, which is the reason they invented JSX. Then they could. So, they actually went out of their way to use XML. I didn't link to the article so that you could get a description of JSX, you rude jerk. I linked so you could get the reasoning. Unfortunately, you're being a complete asshole so just like, never-mind I guess. Have a nice day! :) (Oh and - You haven't given one valid reason why you think it's a bad idea. Just rubbish appeals to authority. Your rant contains no logic. What's your reasoning? You asked "Why is it an advantage to express a route as XML-like JSX?" and the answer is in the rationale given on the JSX spec page. There are 1,000 ways to put together a JS object. There is one way to put together XML. It's a better, simpler standard that lends itself to better tooling and simpler parsers that don't need to parse the entire JS language.)
- efuquen 12y ago
  Your response is way ruder then the OP's, way to escalate the situation ... I don't see how it's hard to understand how using a syntax that was designed for rendering UI components for routing might be a bad idea. It's just screams ugly hack all over the place and I could easily see how it would be confusing and overly verbose.
  - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
    XML syntax was not invented for rendering UI components.