[wereHamster]

This is not a critique of MVC, but rather the particular implementation that Backbone provides. With React you still have your models (and controllers).

And adding a new option may make an existing one obsolete. Remember ES3? I do, but I wouldn't want to write new code in it. Once new options were added (ES5, and then ES6), they made the old one obsolete. It desn't mean you can't use the old options, but why would you if the new ones are superior?

[tragic]

I missed the word 'this' in the GP, so this is fair enough.

Even if we're just talking about Backbone, however, it's a little off: I mean, people use react with the non-view parts of Backbone. Often you're going to need some way to talk to APIs (say), and Backbone gives you a cheap and well-known solution for that. I'm no Backbone fanboy, but significant things have been achieved with it, and they are not now suddenly impossible because there's a new view layer on the scene.

[enraged_camel]

Is the ES3 vs. ES5/ES6 comparison valid? The latter were subsequent versions of the former, kind of like Angular 2 vs Angular 1. Whereas Backbone, Ember, React, etc. are all different, each with its own "way" of doing things.

[wereHamster]

I used ES5/6 because those are (I hope) in the eyes of the HN community clear improvements over ES3. I personally wouldn't use ES5/6 nowadays, and instead use TypeScript or PureScript. Both of which are IMO even bigger improvements. Backwards compatibility does not matter in this comparison, what matters is the relative ordering: Backbone.View < React, ES3 < ES5 < ES6, and IMO: ESx < TypeScript/PureScript.