[dmitriid]

Your original comment was literally this, emphasis mine:

--- start quote ---

All of these concepts are variations of what has been done before in a number of ways. Mostly by "FP academics" who "live in fantasy land", until everyone else starts using them too.

Transpiling, hooks and components have all been done (and done better) before React came along

--- end quote ---

When asked about the emphasized part, you mentioned Svelte for some reason. When called out on that, you went and listed a bunch of things, ... none of which are really better, and are quite esoteric. To the point that it took the authors of some implementations months to understand the concepts.

React (pre-hooks) could be picked up in less than a day, and just worked. Re-creating React concepts from scratch was a three-page tutorial.

[antris]

If you judge technologies based on a single anecdote you've heard on the internet then I don't think this conversation serves any purpose. I don't know what bone you have to pick with any technology other than React, but achieving declarative DOM manipulation pre-React was as simple as `(state) => $('<div>').innerText(state.message)` with the plain old jQuery. That was definitely easier than learning React, and by building a component structure with vanilla javascript functions, you could have all the functionality and expressiveness of JSX without a compile step or external libraries.

Of course this would cause problems that I've described in this thread before (scroll/form state resets, performance problems etc.), so the VDOM was the missing piece of the puzzle. Overall the concept of declarative UI was incredibly simple and predated React, but the VDOM was a great thing that solved the problems people were having with declarative DOM manipulation. If React had shipped just with the VDOM implementation, it wouldn't have needed to expand into a full-fledged framework and introduce a bunch of band-aids on top it. React deservedly skyrocketed, and the VDOM was an incredible thing to introduce at the time, but every part of React is quickly becoming outdated as more FP concepts from the past are introduced into the mainstream.

So all in all, React shaked things up in a good way, and finally people are ready to move on to make their apps actually reactive and taking a serious look on things that have been "academic" before.

[dmitriid]

> If you judge technologies based on a single anecdote you've heard on the internet

I don't

> I don't know what bone you have to pick with any technology other than React

I don't have a bone to pick.

> but achieving declarative DOM manipulation pre-React was as simple as

Yes, it was possibly achievable. Did anyone achieve it? You claimed that evertyhing React has was done better before React. When asked about examples, you answered first with Svelte (which appeared after React), and then with disparate technologies which are are at best esoteric and at worst extremely complex.

> That was definitely easier than learning React, and by building a component structure with vanilla javascript functions, you could have all the functionality and expressiveness of JSX without a compile step or external libraries.

You probably could, but did you? Oh, wait, you didn't. The hot tech du jour when React was released were knockout.js and backbone.js.

And, once again, the etirety of "learning React" took less than a day. And "building a component structure using vanilla javascript functions" was literally a three-page tutorial if you wanted it.

Compare this to Rx that you gave as an example of something "better than React". The author of the original Rx.Net sat by the author of RxJava, and it still took the author of RxJava several months to understand the concept. Lens, another of your examples, is esoteric even in Haskell.

But sure, "everything was done better before React came along" :-\

> React shaked things up in a good way

Indeed, it did.

Funnily enough, you start with "Transpiling, hooks and components have all been done (and done better) before React came along" and then continue with "there's no single 'React but better and made earlier'."

[antris]

>You probably could, but did you? Oh, wait, you didn't. The hot tech du jour when React was released were knockout.js and backbone.js.

I did. It's kind of funny to hear that you cannot even entertain the idea that people actually did declarative UIs before React with plain old vanilla JS, because that was my bread and butter back in the day. That's precisely how I did frontend until React came along, and so did many others. We sometimes sprinkled in some CoffeeScript to get nicer function syntax, before () => {} and babel existed, but it wasn't necessary if we wanted to avoid a compile step.

Just because some frameworks were prevalent at the time didn't mean that everyone used them. Large portion of seasoned developers rejected all frameworks and still do today. They had shot themselves in the foot with MVC/"trying to do everything" -frameworks enough times to learn that not all answers come from a single framework that encompasses your whole application. This is nothing new or esoteric, and still today a good lesson to learn for new developers. Instead many people continue to use "the standard" framework, fighting against it when it fails to fit the domain logic of their app, and waiting for a new framework to arrive to save the day. Frameworks have gotten much more flexible about this today, but React wasn't anything revolutionary on the framework side of things.

It's not as simple as "React bad/React good". A framework/library can be good in certain aspects and bad in others. I loved React when it came out, because of the VDOM. Wasn't a fan of everything else though, and especially not a fan of how it was used as "the new standard framework to tightly couple your application into". This is not a contradiction, it's just non black-and-white thinking.

[dmitriid]

> I did. It's kind of funny to hear that you cannot even entertain the idea that people actually did declarative UIs before React with plain old vanilla JS

By you I meant "collective you". I don't care what individual developers did that no one knows about.

> Just because some frameworks were prevalent at the time didn't mean that everyone used them.

    define: prevalent

    1 : generally or widely accepted, practiced, or favored : widespread

    2 : being in ascendancy : dominant

> Large portion .. upto ... flexible about this today

Bears little to no relevance on the discussion

> React wasn't anything revolutionary on the framework side of things.

Except, it was. It upended the prevalent way of doing things and ushered in a new prevalent way of doing things.

    define: reovultionary

    1 c : constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change

I did bring about a fundamental change: the prevalent way of doing things on the web changed.

> It's not as simple as "React bad/React good".

Of course it's not. But we're not discussing whether it's bad or good.

> it's just non black-and-white thinking.

So far your "non black and white thinking" is "everything React has was done better befroe React, but I can't show anything to prove this except some disparate things that are both complex and esoteric, and I can also go on a prolonged discourse about how some developers don't use frameworks and may have done things a la React before React".

[antris]

I already told you what I did and several developers did before React to combat the same problems the React addressed, but somehow you seem to dismiss all of it. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. I know what kind of code I wrote before React, your ramblings won't change it. Have a good day.

[atatatat]

This disagreement is related to discussing different things:

What devs can implement on their own beyond frameworks, and what frameworks mean to how the community as a whole operates.

"Defaults matter."