Hacker News Reader

Comment by crossman | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious to hear about what gains you saw from dropping it and how you handled rendering

It's a single component app and state does not change at all, in fact, we should be skeptical of React too, terrible for static HTML.

Yes, why would anyone ever use react for static html? That's not a reason to be skeptical. That's just picking the wrong tool for the job.

Maybe because it's not made for static HTML? Why not just use a templating language?

Well React is a templating language. I assume you mean client-side templating.

No offense, but I see from some of your comments here that you don't understand what React is or why it's different from what came before.

Sorry for my ignorance, but could you help me by explaining why my comment was wrong?

This was in response to

> Why not just use a templating language?

React is a templating language...or maybe more specifically has a templating language, JSX. You can even run it server side. http://reactjs.net/guides/server-side-rendering.html

The problem isn't using React in that situation per se but just that server side templating (React or not) would be a better choice. I assume that's what the commenter meant.

> we should be skeptical of React too, terrible for static HTML

It's easy when you use webpack and a static renderer: https://github.com/markdalgleish/static-site-generator-webpa...

For the downvoters, this is satire... I'm not the same poster that was 'skeptical' of react router. I have used both libraries and think they're great at what they're intended for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com