React was never a view-only library.
Pete Hunt always said he saw React components as mini MVC modules.
it's even less true nowadays with features like Context or suspense to supplement the component states. Redux was kind of a temporary hack.
Pete Hunt always said he saw React components as mini MVC modules.
it's even less true nowadays with features like Context or suspense to supplement the component states. Redux was kind of a temporary hack.
Found it: https://web.archive.org/web/20140329114924/http://facebook.g...
> JUST THE UI
> Lots of people use React as the V in MVC. Since React makes no assumptions about the rest of your technology stack, it's easy to try it out on a small feature in an existing project.
So I was mistaken. It didn't say that's what it's only intended for, but that's what many people use it for.
Either way, it's not great at the M or C parts of MVC. Context does very little to ease that pain. Redux was more manageable but also overly complex, but it's only React's design that forced it to be so complex.
With React I can often bring in additional components and libraries without friction. With Angular it feels like doing anything means significant friction. And heaven help you if you want to change the way something internal works, or work around things.
Oh yeah... drag-drop integration... that was the single biggest pain. None of the component libraries worked well, and doing it manually was harder than I've experienced before, including just straight JS, and definitely worse as a whole than using say jQuery-UI.
If it were a year or more ago, I could cite better examples of pain points. 2+ is better than 1.x, but still horrible. I'd rather see people adopt Vue over Angular. I still prefer a react-alike over any of them.
Whenever I’ve needed drag and drop functionality in the past I’ve found it in existing UI components. A fairly comprehensive one is primeng. I’ve also added an angular colour picker and highcharts without very much trouble.
Often when I hear people complain about angular, I wonder if they just don’t understand it very well and are trying to do things the wrong way. Angular is opinionated, but I don’t find it terribly difficult or painful, though at this point I do have rather a lot of experience with it and find it’s difficult to put myself back in the shoes of someone with less.
I really do enjoy the framework and how comprehensive it is. I like having a framework that gives me so much out of the box without having to go to a somewhat unstable ecosystem of related projects. Frankly I think Angular’s bad name is due in part to it simply being fashionable to put Angular down, and partially because it’s critics never really learned how to use it.
Also, something about jsx just rubs me up the wrong way.
As to JSX, it's something close to what I wanted a long time ago... when E4X was added to Mozilla's browsers, along with support for it with Flash/ActionScript3 and XML literal support in VB.Net (not that I love that language) ... interactivity to the UI was SO much simpler. The shame is it was never really supported in other browsers, which left it dead on the vine.
When JSX came out, it's REALLY close to what I already wanted, and in most cases better. In the end, I can compose a React/JSX component starting with a static render function in a file by itself... I can grow it and turn it into a class or wrap it in higher order components. Compose with extensions like react-redux, material-ui, react-jss with ease. Every single time I write an Angular component, I'm looking up configuration arguments for @directives. It's just painfully restrictive by comparison.
Simplest react component
// HelloComponent.js
import React from 'react';
export default ({name}) => <div>Hello {name}!</div>
// StatefulComponent.js
import Hello from './HelloComponent.js';
...
return <Hello name={this.state.name} />