Thanks to that page letting me see how many dozens of lines of code React needs to do the equivalent of
reply const element = document.createElement("h1");
element.innerHTML = "Hello";
element.setAttribute("title", "foo");
const container = document.getElementById("root");
container.appendChild(element);
To be fair, if all you need is to add elements to a child you don’t need React.
replyMaybe nobody needs React, I’m not a fan. But a trivial stateless injection of DOM content is no argument at all.
The "magic" of React though is in its name, it's reactive. If all you're doing is creating static elements that don't need to react to changes in state then yeah, React is overkill. But when you have complex state and need all your elements to update as that state changes, then the benefits of React (or similar frameworks) become more apparent. Of course it's all still possible in vanilla JS, but it starts to become a mess of event handlers and DOM updates and the React equivalent starts to look a lot more appealing.
replyAll of that is the JavaScript equivalent of
reply <h1 title=foo>Hello</h1>
Well I'd hesitate to touch any of my codebases, too, so that's fair :)
replyStop touching my vanilla.js codebase, you naughty!
replyThis code only works if run in a browser composed of millions of lines of C++.
replyGiven the verbosity of Java's hello world vs Python's, you'd walk away with the conclusion that Java should never be used for anything, but that would be a mistake.
replyClearly Java only belongs on things like credit cards and Minecraft
/s
replyThanks for this! I've mostly avoided getting too into React and its ilk, mainly because I hate how bloated the actual code generated by that kind of application tends to be. But also I am enjoying going through this. If I can complete it, I think I will be more informed about how React really works.
reply