[iamjs]

Two years ago, I started a new company, and decided at the outset to avoid using any heavy JavaScript SPA framework. We stuck to simple server-rendered html and only use progressive-enhancement style JavaScript.

Our app was fast, and simple, but it also came at a cost: we were limited in our ability to take rich UI elements off the shelf with an npm package. We had to do a lot more work to provide a rich user experience. Everything took longer, and the user experience was worse as a result. We cared, but sometimes you don't have time to carry through.

The company failed, and I don't think react would have saved it. But I can tell you first hand that righteous adherence to "simplicity" didn't help either. It's always a trade-off.

[aturek]

I also prefer simple web tech, but I'm really glad you brought these points up! Ecosystems matter more than a lot of purist devs think.

[creesch]

I feel like there is some context missing in your story here. There is a lot of middleground between heavy SPA frameworks and creating everything from scratch. More importantly, I am left wondering what sort of functionality was your team trying to build that requires that much interactivity? At least that is what I assume with "rich user experience"?

[yurishimo]

If I had to guess, they were probably wanting to implement something like animations into the UI. Animating a list of items onload in a staggered format is still basically impossible unless 100% of your users are using Chrome. With a JS animation+component library, this type of animation is pretty much plug-n-play.

When the startup is trying to attract customers and also impress investors, sometimes there is a lot of effort spent on the investors just so they keep putting money into the machine. "See! We have an ultra modern/sleek site so it must be some other variable that is causing customers to churn..."