[morgante]

Honestly, it comes off pretty poorly for you to downplay the work of your competitors.

It might be easier to get server-side rendering working with React, but pretending that it's not the same thing is just condescending. There are dozens of examples out there showing how to render React pages on the server, including fetching the necessary data for that rendering.

The mechanisms you use might be different, but pretending they're not analogous is duplicitous at best. Both let you ship a fully rendered first view to the client.

[tomdale]

If I wanted to downplay competitors, why would I acknowledge that Angular 2 is doing something similar? Angular has much larger marketshare at the moment than React.

It is fundamentally different, as I outlined above. That's not downplaying the work of React—they've done significant work in advancing the state of the art of DOM rendering that has hugely inspired the work of both Glimmer and Glimmer 2, as we have said frequently and publicly.

I have tremendous respect for the Angular and React teams and consider many contributors to both to be personal friends. I'm not downplaying their work—it just really, really, really is not the same thing.

[exogen]

I totally believe the work you've done here is significantly more polished and "conventionalized", that is awesome and congrats! Ember's tools are really slick.

That said, everything you're describing – "asynchronously boot an app, marshall async data, render an async UI, and do it concurrently" – is really, really, really the same thing we're (my team at least) doing with React. People aren't just using `renderToString` and calling it a day.

[hatsix]

I think this argument is coming down to semantics.

Is there an 'analagous initiative' in React? No.

Can you end up with the same result in React? Yes.

There are people doing this in React, but each team needs to do it slightly differently because their app is setup differently. There are guides and examples on how to do it, but unless you setup your project exactly like the original author, you'll have to figure out portions of it on your own.

On top of that, you won't know if the modules that you are using will play well with the offline rendering.

The convention-driven approach IS the product... You make it sound like that is just a little bit of polish, maybe a page or two of documentation... But it took over a year of planning and architecture to make all of the changes. (There was a great demo of fastboot a year ago) Because of the planning and framework changes, however, every addon that follows the conventions will 'just work' with fastboot.

When Tom says "An App"... he means "Any App"... and that isn't something that I've seen being worked towards by the React community. It IS being done by other communities, as seen in this thread, so I think that it's valid for Tom to call this out as not being analogous.

[morgante]

> I'm not downplaying their work—it just really, really, really is not the same thing.

The methods might very well be different, but the result is the same.

Pretending that you can't do server-side rendering with React is not helpful and untrue. Just because they haven't put the same work into conventionalizing it does not mean that analogous initiatives don't exist for React.

There are plenty of guides and tutorials out there showing how to do server side rendering in React.

[savanaly]

From one point of view (a user of the framework who doesn't care how the sausage gets made) they are analogous. But from the point of view of someone who developed the solution or who has to micro optimize the solution I believe tom dale is right that it is quite different.

You're right that tomdale came off condescending (as he often does when promoting/defending ember...ah well). But it certainly isn't "duplicitous at best"!

[morgante]

I'd say that both are analogous.

Analogous doesn't mean identical. The results are similar, even though what's happening under the hood is different.