[int0x80]

>>If you tear out something like jQuery, you’re going to have to figure out a way to get those accordions to expand and collapse again. If you tear out React, you get a blank page. React is a big commitment. >This is probably the only real concern I see.

I'm sorry but this is not a problem. If you commit to React then you commit to it. You are not suppoused to change it every other year.

Imagine a big C++ Qt application. Will you ever think of changing Qt on it, and expect no huge cost? No. That's unreasonable.

So what he wants is not only a cross-browser, cross-platform framework (and much more) but also a framework that is somehow "cross-framework"!!

This is really getting me. People, such flexibility and ubiquity is NOT FREE. People this days complain about the web being to complicated, and that it is a lot of complexity to make something "simple as a webapp". I agree, it is. But that simple multimedia webapp you get today works over a distributed network, in almost every platform, from mobile to desktop to almost everywhere. This kind of ubiquity will be unthinkable in the early 90s/2000s without investing on a huge number of experienced dev teams and a huge especialized codebase(s). Today some javascript framework and markup will give you almost the same product. Yes, I think the web ecosystem can be improved. A lot. And the end result is not always 1:1 comparable at many levels with what you would get back in the day with native apps and a load of work and experience. But still.

People complain but they don't know what they are getting.