So it seems like the BBC is making the Next/React mistake?
*sigh*
So it seems like the BBC is making the Next/React mistake?
*sigh*
@tomski Having trouble grabbing one of the "new" site URLs reliably, but you might wonder to yourself, "self, why does it seem like this website briefly blinks out of this mortal plane at the 3-second mark, only to gasp back to life moments later?"
The answer, of course, is React.
@tomski Looks like I can get to the "new new" version now:
https://www.webpagetest.org/result/231121_BiDc3S_DFW/
The amount of JS running on this page is *wild:*
@slightlyoff That's totally unrelated to BBC, but I am still curious: Don't you think that React has introduced some great ideas? I e.g. like JSX (does not necessarily mean that it has to use VDOM, right?).
But don't get me wrong, nowadays I also wouldn't choose it when building something from scratch 🙈 It feels to me like they are fixing problems today that you would not have if you would not be using React in the first place.
@danrot I was being glib for comic effect.
React popularising reactive programming[1] has been valuable. Has the specific form it promigulated been worth the cost? No; this specific juice was not worth an industry-wide squeeze, although it's unsurprising from that perspective that others have improved on it massively.
[1]: they claim "functional reactive", but in practice it's only reactive