[madeofpalk]

> That is built with React Native for Windows. No, that is not a full JavaScript framework in your start menu.

This is incorrect. It is a full JavaScript framework in your start menu.

I don't see your read that it's about ram-hungry web views either. To me, "Start menu uses React" is a dig that Microsoft is so uncommitted to it's native development platform that they (partially) don't use it in one of the most 'core' parts of the operating system.

[p_ing]

Shouldn't devs be allowed to select what they feel is the "best" choice for a given component? While I wouldn't expect to see a SwiftUI in Windows from Microsoft, Microsoft hasn't been adverse to various NIH web frameworks for quite some time now.

If it fits and meets the goals of the project, why not?

[madeofpalk]

If Microsoft developers' "best" choice for a tiny UI component like this is not it's flagship native UI framework, then that's a problem for Microsoft. That is the criticism.

[p_ing]

You have inside knowledge of why React Native was chosen?

[scottlamb]

> Shouldn't devs be allowed to select what they feel is the "best" choice for a given component?

To some extent, yes. But if they choose React Native, something's probably wrong, because (despite what the article says) that requires throwing in a Javascript engine, significantly bloating a core Windows component. If they only use it for a small section ("that can be disabled", or in other words is on by default), it seems like an even poorer trade-off, as most users suffer the pain but the devs are making minimal advantage of whatever benefits it provides.

If the developers are correct that this is the best choice, that reflects poorly on the quality of Microsoft's core native development platforms, as madeofpalk said.

If the developers of a core Windows component are incorrect about the best choice, that reflects poorly on this team, and I might be inclined to say no, someone more senior should be making the choice.

[layer8]

The critique is exactly that they apparently felt that React Native was the best choice for such a component.

[p_ing]

And if it was the best choice, the critique isn't valid.

If you know why it was chosen and if it was a bad choice compared to other frameworks, please do tell.

[layer8]

There are two possibilities: Either it’s really the best choice among the available frameworks (very questionable), or they picked it regardless. Both reflect badly on Microsoft, given what React Native is, and given how central the Start menu is to the Windows experience.

[madeofpalk]

What are some of the possible hypothetical reasons that would make introducing React Native to the core OS start menu like this the best choice?

[scottlamb]

Here's one: Microsoft management heavily incentivizes their developers to use LLMs for virtually everything (to the "do it or you're fired" level) and the LLM (due to its training data or whatever) is far more able to pump out code with React Native than their own frameworks. This makes it the right choice for them. Not for the user, but you can't have everything.

I don't have any inside information; I'm running with the hypothetical.

[lostmsu]

It has been React before ChatGPT.