[peterangular]

> The most problematic assumption you’ve made is that if it’s not React, it’s spaghetti.

This is the biggest problem I keep seeing in the conversation... Tons of people assuming that vanilla JS has to be crap code. In reality, I've worked on MANY well-documented codebases with large JS cores that are custom. Yes some are gross, but some are very simple and easy-to-follow even when I'm 100% unfamiliar with the codebase.

Honestly I get it - having an opinionated framework is awesome when you're working in large teams of varying skill... but if this is aimed at "startups" like it touts I have zero tolerance for increased complexity because "ECMA without React is 'spaghetti'" or "this will handle the feature creep better" - both are a faulty basis for inclusion of a major/opinionated dependency.

[seanwilson]

For a typical landing page, you're not going to have a lot of JavaScript code anyway, and each chunk will only be doing a small thing (e.g. analytics, submitting a form) so there's not much scope for spaghetti logic. On a similar note, I'd rather code in TypeScript over regular JavaScript but for a typical landing page it's not worth complicating the build process by adding TypeScript.

[jwdunne]

This is exactly what I was trying to say in a fraction of the words :)

I prefer TypeScript. And I enjoy using it with React. But I cannot justify the overhead of the build process and, if react is included in the artefacts, the asset overhead.

The main assumption is that I have lots of landing pages. But I’m commenting on a landing page template, which I can only use on new landing pages. And in that event, I don’t have loads of LPs, I have one, the one I’m building.