Thanks a lot for your effort and all the work you did to get this done.
May I ask about the feedback you provided and they didn't include?
May I ask about the feedback you provided and they didn't include?
- At least _mentioning_ Vite directly on the "Create a Project" page _is_ genuinely a step in the right direction. That said, they're going out of their way to still not just directly say "creating a basic SPA with Vite is a valid option for using React", and at this point it just looks pretty ridiculous. (Someone pointed out that the Svelte docs start with "Use SvelteKit"... and then the very next thing is "or add Svelte to a basic Vite project with this template". That's what's needed here.)
- I get the _intent_ of the "Build Your Own Framework" phrasing (ie, "choosing to self-install a router, data fetching lib, etc, results in a poor self-created framework"). That said, the "BYOF" page is the opposite of what's needed. It needs to be concrete steps to guide beginners into setting up an app with Vite or Parcel and recommending specific tools to add and techniques to use. Instead, it's "Step 1: Install Vite or Parcel"... and then multiple sections of "Look how hard routing, data fetching, and rendering are, you'll _never_ get this right yourself, use an existing framework instead, DON'T DO IT YOURSELF!". The content would be great if it was on a page titled "Web App Perf Basics", or "Framework Capabilities". But given that this is linked from the "Create" page with the hint of "follow steps here to get going DIY", this is the wrong content entirely.
- Similarly, the repeated use of "framework" to mean "a pre-existing thing someone else built" vs "a set of libs you added yourself" is confusing. Along with that, the overall tone generally comes across as "we don't want to acknowledge the breadth of ways that people use React in practice, and we're going to keep repeating the word 'framework' because we don't trust users to know how to make decisions themselves and we know what's best for you".
- I understand why they tried to emphasize "Next/RR/Expo can all export plain SPAs with no server needed!". That knowledge is genuinely not widespread. But, I don't think a bright green callout with that info should be the _first_ thing on the "Create a Project" page. _Somewhere_ on the page, sure, but it's not the most critical thing to show right away.
So, actual genuine improvement... and yet still kinda frustrating to read and see the phrasing and messaging so far off from what it _ought_ to be.
For the type of app that React excels at, or at least the type I like to build, the performance issues with a SPA aren't a big deal.
I don't know why they're so resistant to do treat SPAs as a completely valid way to use React in 2025. The majority of devs still use React primarily as a SPA. Recent State of React has it at 85% for SPA and 63% for SSR (1). Probably they know their answer is unpopular and thus we get a lot of deflection and phrases like "you should only consider a SPA if you have unusual constraints" whatever that's suppose to mean.
I've said it before, but changes don't happen when random devs like me complain, because I'm easy to ignore. So I really appreciate you specifically bringing this topic up, it really helps to get things going.
Many React of the core devs work for Vercel, so they have to promote Next and anything that leads people towards their platform.