I have to disagree.
It can't be that that design pattern because React did not invent it. Every server-side templating library is a pure functional transformation of application state. I can tell you that many people also ported that design pattern to JS.
What tripped library writers up is once they applied that pattern to JS, there is no way to actually define the transformation because to do that, you either write a template or the code-equivalent (i.e. using DOM as your data model). And that's where JSX came in.
Also, I think you have patterns completely confused.
Backbone is NOT in the same class as jQuery or React. Backbone is more like Redux, mobx, or React hooks because it's a data model library. In Backbone, you define "models" and "collections" -- basically, you use Backbone to store your application data in memory.
Backbone did have a views component to it but it actually could not generate any HTML. Look at this example from their docs:
var Bookmark = Backbone.View.extend({
template: _.template(...),
render: function() {
this.$el.html(this.template(this.model.attributes));
return this;
}
});
It literally has jQuery and underscore.js! Backbone had no templating/HTML generation ability so when you used Backbone, you combined the fat Backbone classes with whatever horrific HTML-generation method you used to create a huge monster.
You can actually use Backbone.js with React since they are not in the same class. You would not, of course, because mobx is basically the same style of data modeling as Backbone.js but with almost no boilerplate.