[zacharytamas]

I think it's mostly due to browser support and developer awareness of Web Components. Chrome has native support (of course) for the four main technologies needed for Web Components, but other browsers are starting to catch on. In the meantime you need a few Polyfills to get full support, which is not ideal.

The support graph is starting to look a lot better, though: https://jonrimmer.github.io/are-we-componentized-yet/

Safari has shipped 2/4 of them already with the Custom Elements v1 spec currently in the Safari Tech Preview and turned on by default. https://webkit.org/blog/7027/introducing-custom-elements/

[ergo14]

Sure, but look at it this way - with other solutions like lets say React their virtual dom is your "polyfill". Even with polyfills polymer is MUCH smaller than react core ;-) I don't see it as a problem as I've created elements that worked in IE10+ with it.

[zacharytamas]

Oh I definitely agree with you. We've worked on projects with Angular 1/2, React/Redux, and Polymer and Polymer is, for me personally at least, the nicest to work with. I have grown to really like TypeScript since working in React land on recent projects but I'm excited because Polymer 2.0 will be [easily] TS compatible. Best of both worlds, I think.

[Vinnl]

React's virtual DOM has a far smaller performance impact than the web components polyfills have...

[ergo14]

You with your FUD again, dbmon benchmarks say otherwise.