[hyperpress]

> Given that they were introduced in 2011, and in regards to their usage you hear... well crickets

> I think we can safely say that web components have failed.

> It doesn’t look similar to React at all, and still suffers from the same issues that jQuery does.

jQuery? I think your just making up nonsense there.

Fully ten percent of the web is using web components at this typing, and it's continued growth is steady as more and more libraries and frameworks, excepting those least able to easily leverage them, bring them into the their own projects. YouTube, ING, McDonald's, and other adopters are some pretty loud crickets.

[Aeolun]

Nope, no nonsense, but the issue has already been repeated in a bunch of comments here, so I don’t really need to any more.

> Fully ten percent

Citation needed. I’m sure it could be true, but it seems a high number for something that I’ve literally heard about for the first time today.

[hyperpress]

Repeating what? The same outdated, misrepresented arguments mainly relied on by react fandom? It's simple, lot's of options out there. If comfort and loyalty clearly takes precedence over best solutions, you've already made the decision. The problem isn't that web components failed, or you can't pass objects via props, or that you think you need polymer, or their not browser supported, or they actually adapt in most existing Frameworks. The problem is turf, and react loves its turf. Just point out that arguing from a position of 5 year old specs, adoption, and knowledge isn't, IMO, very wise. Rather a self inflicted lost opportunity.