Comment by igorbark

8 days ago

you don't need to send 100kb+ of JS over the wire to build a static site in react: for example https://vike.dev supports static HTML-only output for a site built with React.

as for "why React", speaking just for myself it's really nice to just have one tool that can do everything (static HTML-only, static with JS, SPA, SSR) and not have to context switch or potentially even have to split my site into two projects just because I want to hop between one or the other approach. and React has the biggest mindshare and ecosystem.

27 comments

igorbark

Reply
turtlebits  8 days ago

I think you just proved the point by introducing yet another frontend framework to learn.

And you absolutely don't want one tool to do everything. HTML/CSS is native and understanding it is a requirement for React. It also doesn't require Node and a build step.

  • nsonha  8 days ago

    I think all software engineers in the world who know HTML/CSS (like who doesn't?) beg to differ

    Really funny how some devs think they know the secrets of engineering simplicity and everyone else is a fool for not knowing what they know (HTML/CSS).

    • owebmaster  7 days ago

      Read this thread. There are some comments about using React components for everything and never touching HTML tags and CSS. And they probably call themselves senior frontend engineers.

      8 replies →

  • lmm  8 days ago

    > HTML/CSS is native and understanding it is a requirement for React.

    It's not necessary and the ROI is poor IMO, especially for CSS. Better to just use React for everything and not worry about the implementation details; yes those details will sometimes help you debug, just like knowing machine code will occasionally help you debug your compiled code, but it's not something to put a lot of your learning budget into.

    > It also doesn't require Node and a build step.

    The point is assuming you already have node and a build step. You already know React. So just use it for everything. Everyone who thinks they can "just write HTML/CSS" ends up introducing Hugo or Gatsby or whatnot (or, worse, writing their own "simple" Makefiles and shell scripts) and gradually adding more and more features until it's just as complex as React. Just use React.

    • satvikpendem  8 days ago

      > It's not necessary and the ROI is poor IMO, especially for CSS. Better to just use React for everything and not worry about the implementation details; yes those details will sometimes help you debug, just like knowing machine code will occasionally help you debug your compiled code, but it's not something to put a lot of your learning budget into.

      ...what? What are you writing in React if not HTML tags and CSS classes? How can you even write anything in React without that? React doesn't do anything CSS specific either, so I don't understand how you'd even style anything if HTML and CSS were not a "necessity."

      8 replies →

owebmaster  8 days ago

> you don't need to send 100kb+ of JS over the wire to build a static site in react

It is telling that the blog of the fw creator ships 500kb of JS/CSS/HTML to display text on a screen.

> it's really nice to just have one tool that can do everything (static HTML-only, static with JS, SPA, SSR)

WebComponents (+lit-html)

  • danabramov  6 days ago

    Pretty much none of that is blocking first paint. Disable JS and see that my site works just fine. I have interactive examples on some pages but all the extra stuff is just “nice-to-have”.

    Also I’m not a framework creator.

  • perilunar  8 days ago

    Yep. 411 KB of JS (126 KB minified). 525 KB of fonts! 40KB of HTML. 1.1MB (704 KB minified) total for approximately 4.3 KB of actual text.

    That's a crap:content ratio of 256:1