Am I the only one that kind of thinks most websites should just be static pages? Like, I get pretty irritated when I go to read a blog post on Medium or wherever and it loads a header and a blank page, and then loads a bunch of javascript (mostly tracking and analytics frameworks), and finally goes out and gets the actual content. And then if I scroll down, it has to load some more garbage from Disqus or something.<p>PLEASE JUST GIVE ME A STATIC PAGE WITH YOUR CONTENT.<p>I really do not care if the comments don't refresh live.
Wouldn't this make it even more difficult for search engines to index your pages?<p>Also, I'm not sure we want a full rendering on the server. That will make the page appear to have a longer loading time rather than the other way around. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.<p>It does sound interesting though. I'm looking forward to your follow up posts.
Can someone explain to me what "isomorphic" means in the tagline for the linked Director library[1]? I have no idea how isomorphism is supposed to play into all of this?<p>[1] "a tiny and isomorphic URL router for JavaScript
<a href="http://github.com/flatiron/director"" rel="nofollow">http://github.com/flatiron/director"</a>
> You can choose to use this, but after getting over my initial distaste for it ("Ack! Who got markup in my code!"), I could never go back to not using it.<p>Or you could just use HTMLbars/Handlebars. Seems like "JSX" is just a more complicated version of a Mustache-esque logic-less template.
I come from an Ember.js background and its router / nested layout management is the best I have used. I like react, and have been diving into OM as well in my free time, but I'm not sure of the best way to approach routing / page transitions.<p>When I start an app, I do not think from the bottom up, which is the react way. I want to start with the login page and redirects, or get the major page transitions down. I'll be interested in seeing how you approach that.
I would be interested to know what exactly React solves when we already have so many options - Ember, Angular, Backbone to do the same thing.<p>Why would one want to increase the complexity of the application by introducing "yet another new thing" on an already complex architecture.<p>I am just not sold on React. If someone could show a demo of why should we use React instead of, Backbone.View for example, then we can talk.
The lack of understanding and amount of hatred against web applications (different from web pages) is both sickening and rejuvenating. It is sad because the article is fairly clear, it describes the future of most computing (since most "human" computing will happen on the web) and it really shouldn't be hard to understand. But I am glad that most of the top commenters here instead focus on hating "webdevs". It means these people will stay on the desktop and won't create clones of desktop applications in the browser (see google docs for a missed opportunity of a better office system). History will show which way things shifted, no need to flame about it here now.
This is confusing. <a href="http://www.reactjs.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reactjs.com/</a>, which I believe predates this other react.js
<a href="http://www.ractivejs.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ractivejs.org/</a> is another similar client-side view framework that uses a shadow DOM.<p>I don't know how suitable it would be for server-side rendering though.
I am learning how to make desktop apps with Reactjs + Backbone + PouchDB and Brackets-Shell just for fun and learning purposes, so far it has been a very exciting experience.
Can anybody explain to me how to use react.js without their "guard" feature. I need my app to throw the error natively and not wrapped by the framework.<p>Thanks
(<a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21040538/how-to-disable-the-guard-feature-in-facebook-react-when-working-with-pure-java" rel="nofollow">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21040538/how-to-disable-t...</a>)
God I am sick of the passive-agressive "Finally, we have something GOOD! for X" titles that disparage everything that already exists for X.<p>I saw a reddit article yesterday about "Finally a way of doing X that doesn't suck" despite there already being libraries to do X.<p>This casual dismissal and disparaging of existing work is the kind of thing that causes people to give up on stuff (WhytheLuckyStiff for example)<p>It also causes me to be instantly antagonistic towards said new library / feature. It raises the bar that I expect them ot reach. "Oh? You are the ONLY good way to do something? Prove it"
I still don't get it that you would like to write in an inferior language such as js on the server side. Cm'on its broken by design. There are a lot of better alternatives.<p>The only reason to use .js on the serverside is that you don't know better.