[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93component%E2%80...
Carmel might be another example of this. Chromium/Firefox WebVR support on Linux and Mac has been an unstaffed joke. Even on Windows, it's been moving very slowly. As Facebook pushes to be a dominant player in social vr, it needs platforms it can rapidly advance.
Why?/Technical: Why ReactVR rather than aframe-react? A-Frame makes several architecture bets in a new and unfamiliar domain. It reminds me of early Angular. Angular devs said "revolutionary! it's the future! google!". And what I heard was "This is a new thing, so of course we're making bad architectural choices! This generation is an exploratory throw-away! You should skip it! And we're so inexperienced we don't even realize that's what we're saying!" :) Maybe the bets will all win. Maybe. But ReactVR is much more incremental progress. And if both become popular, and if there's need for A-Frame components in ReactVR, I expect someone will write glue. Or even sooner.
And since it sometimes comes up, why is the comparison ReactVR vs aframe-react (or something like it), and not ReactVR vs A-Frame? While React began life as a dinky virtual-dom library with delusions of grandeur, it has become an ecosystem for managing complex applications. So when A-Frame says "we're HTML and Components, for VR!", it's also saying "we're no more sufficient for creating complex apps than html is!" and "we're yet another attempt to create web components!" (a path littered with corpses, with the survivors tied to particular frameworks). So one could argue for angular-aframe, or ember-aframe, but complex A-Frame apps will need to be aframe plus something.
tl;dr: Perhaps control of development; and it's not clear A-Frame is the right thing.
I guess if you're already happy with VRML, you're set though ;)