Sure. The point is, people use React for everything, even static web sites, not only for creating reactive user interfaces. They do it because someone else told them so.

▲

lmm 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> people use React for everything, even static web sites, not only for creating reactive user interfaces. They do it because someone else told them so.

No, they do it because it's simpler.

▲

b_e_n_t_o_n 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe they do it because they like React? :)

▲

motorest 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Sure. The point is, people use React for everything, even static web sites, not only for creating reactive user interfaces. They do it because someone else told them so.

No, not really. There is more to picking up a tool than some rando's simplistic drive-by judgement. For example, say you have a React SPA managed by a team which built and manage their whole platform, from the CICD pipelines to the hosting solution. All your infrastructure was built around providing a React app and it's backing services. You are then suddenly faced with a need to implement a feature where a user after clicking on a link navigates to a page that just shows static text. Now think. If you implement that page with React then that's a one-point task. Just create a component, fill it with text, post a PR, done. What level of effort does it take you to implement that with another technology? If you go with the simplistic take that plain HTML is better, now you need to set aside time to sort out support for styling, sort out where and how to deploy those assets, work on a process to automate the deployment, etc etc. Now your simplistic drive for simplicity turned into something between a week and a month's worth of work requiring infrastructure changes and adapting deployment strategies, all of this requiring not-so-trivial QA and testing work.

What problems did you solved? Can you describe your system as simpler, and keep a straight face?

▲

selcuka 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You gave an example where the use of react would be justified to prove your point. You could have also given one where it isn't. The article is about the latter.

	▲	motorest 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> You gave an example where the use of react would be justified to prove your point. You could have also given one where it isn't. The article is about the latter. Not really, the article is about a belief some other approach would be preferable based on superficial and specious reasoning. My example proved that this kind of superficial and simplistic analysis fails to account for critical aspects which are key to explain why a decision was made. This doesn't go away by complaining that I refuted your point while I could easily not refute it. The whole argument is silly, if you think about it. What could possibly possess anyone to believe they are the only ones who know better and everyone else in the world who disagrees is stupid and doesn't know what they are doing?
	▲	philipwhiuk 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> The article is about the latter. And yet fails to provide a single example.

▲

tpm 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> They do it because someone else told them so.

Alternatively, they do it because if you are holding a React, everything looks like it should be implemented using a React. While the finished product might be more complex than needed, it is less complex for them, because they have used a tool they understand well.