[Joeri]

Thank you for posting this! VanillaJSX is refreshingly different, and we desperately need new ideas in the front-end space to reduce the complexity and get closer to the browser. I also feel like the discussion in this thread is very rich and gives people on both sides of the fence a lot of stuff to think about.

There were two groups I was hoping vanillajsx would resonate with. The first is people who still buy into the React dream but are beginning to be disillusioned with its inability to deliver on its promises, and the second is people who already are fully disillusioned.

I don't know if you've seen it, but Alex Russell just did a blog series where he directly talks about this disillusion and proposes a move away from React for most web apps: https://infrequently.org/series/reckoning/

I am not as anti-React as that myself, but I do agree it is hard to scale up and have it perform well, not at all like the promise. As always, there are no silver bullets and you have to pick a stack that you can understand.

By the way, I made my own pitch for fully vanilla web development here: https://plainvanillaweb.com/

[merrywhether]

IMO that blog series misses the point. Knowledgeable motivated developers can make great experiences with any technology, and conversely there are bad experiences built with every technology. That series blames the people involved for not being better, but that’s just blaming plane crashes on human error and calling it a day.

- If the UK GSD is anything like USDS, using them for comparison is like comparing a pro sports team to your local high school’s. They are an outlier specifically created to be better than the average, so tautologically their stuff will be better. Code For America is a similarly odd comparison.

- The US has a massive gap in pay and prestige between public and private sector developer jobs. It’s not that this means “worse” people work at public jobs, but in general they start less experienced and can wind up in a non-learning cycle as they don’t get mentorship/guidance from more expert folks, and if they do get good independently they leave. It’s really hard to convince people to take a pay cut to work these jobs, and many of the few willing to do so instead go to CFA, USDS, etc because they want prestige and avoid all the other inefficiencies in public jobs.

I could go on about the structural problems leading to this, but suffice it to say that blaming React and other JS frameworks is a miss. For some services it’s lucky they are online at all, and a slow web page is still orders of magnitude faster than physical mail or god forbid going to a physical office. The sites could definitely be better but this is not fundamentally a problem of technology choice.

[claytongulick]

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand the point you're making here.

Frameworks have evolved over time, as we've identified better ways of doing things and as the browsers have implemented native solutions to problems that frameworks were invented to address.

For example, we don't use dojo anymore. Or ember. Or backbone. The list of once-popular frameworks that have faded is long.

The point that I (and and increasing number of other developers) have been making for a while now is that React has hit this stage. Many of the problems it was invented to solve are mostly not currently relevant as native solutions have become more widely adopted.

This has caused React to evolve into bloatware in an effort to maintain mind share. I think that evolution has had the opposite effect. I think it has driven many developers to seek simpler solutions.

I think it's completely valid to recognize framework's strengths and (especially) weaknesses. You can call this "blame" or just a justified critique.

I agree with your point that lower-skilled developers can make a mess out of any technology, but one of the supposed benefits to adopting a framework is to provide guard rails against this. If that's not working, it makes you question the fundamental value of using a framework at all.