[bubblyworld]

I don't buy the premise - that LLMs being trained on more React code than other frameworks is going to cause the collapse of alternatives. The data presented in the article isn't very convincing to me - it's absolute numbers, it's not a zero-sum game, and besides LLM coding is the worst it's ever going to be. Hypothetically, even if the data was convincing (showing a massively increasing relative share of React usage since LLMs entered the scene), I don't think it's sensible to extrapolate from current trends about LLM coding anyway. This stuff is barely a few years old and we want to make confident predictions about it?

[mexicocitinluez]

> I don't buy the premise - that LLMs being trained on more React code than other frameworks is going to cause the collapse of alternatives

But if less people are exposed to those frameworks, then surely that means they will be less popular? I'm struggling to understand your argument.

> he data presented in the article isn't very convincing to me - it's absolute numbers, it's not a zero-sum game,

Of course it is. If I'm using React to build a site, I'm not using Svelte to build it. It less people are using a framework, there will be less funding. If more people use it, more money.

> I don't think it's sensible to extrapolate from current trends about LLM coding anyway.

The actual tools themselves are using React. Bolt, a UI design LLM, uses React by default. i don't even think there's an option to use a different language right now. These tools have taken over the industry, and have absolutely exploded in popularity in the few years they've been available. This is going to create a snowball effect.

> This stuff is barely a few years old and we want to make confident predictions about it?

I don't think you read the article as closely as you think you do. Saying "React has probably spiked in popularity because LLM's use it be default" isn't that controversial. And it's true. And I don't think it's a long shot to say "If there's less data associated with a framework, it'll be less likely to be used by these tools and then less likely to be used at all." In fact, it feels like a pretty obvious conclusion.

We can ignore what is clearly happening (which even as a React dev I don't want because it WILL limit my future options) or work to make sure those tools are offering other defaults.

[bubblyworld]

> But if less people are exposed to those frameworks, then surely that means they will be less popular?

I agree, but I don't think the data suggests that is what's happening. The data presented in the article shows only that the number of new sites made with React has increased greatly since LLMs arrived on the scene. But there's a base rate fallacy here - we aren't shown data for any other frameworks!

>Of course it is.

That's not what I mean by a zero-sum game. There isn't a fixed number of websites that different frameworks are taking a share of (this would be a zero-sum game). The number of websites itself has massively increased since LLMs arrived on the scene. You can very quickly spin up 100 new sites using your new framework without all the other frameworks "losing" 100 sites, you know what I mean? Similarly I think the number of people making websites has exploded for the same reason.

And this is another explanation for the data in the article - that there are simply way more sites being created now that it's so trivial for anyone to make one. Have a look at the StackExchange links I gave in my last comment. There isn't much evidence there that React is overwhelming the industry (especially amongst professional devs), although I grant you it would be difficult to measure if it were true.

> The actual tools themselves are using React. [...] These tools have taken over the industry.

Yes, but so have plenty of other tools that don't use React by default, like Claude Code or Codex. There are plenty of new websites being made across all of the major frameworks.

> I don't think you read the article as closely as you think you do.

Do you mind cutting it out with the ad-hominems? I've been nothing but respectful to you, and in each of your replies you've made little jabs at me about "not understanding the article". I just disagree with you, friend, be nice =)