I think the main issue here is a misunderstanding: one of the paradigms of react is that it makes it simple to share and re-use components. What managers often don't realize is that this also makes it difficult to write components to be shared and re-used. So they only see the benefit of react, but not the cost.
That being said, react can be helpful for more complex web apps, but for a normal website, it is maybe not an ideal choice.
Coding is as much a matter of personal growth as it is of logic and control-flow. I keep patience, curiosity, & exuberance in the same toolbox as vim and git.
*Opinions posted are my own*
That depends. It's simpler to share with other react-apps. With everyone else, not so much. In any case, it doesn't seem a coincidence that Facebook developed a framework based on a technical lock-in.
Coding is as much a matter of personal growth as it is of logic and control-flow. I keep patience, curiosity, & exuberance in the same toolbox as vim and git.
*Opinions posted are my own*
I think the main issue here is a misunderstanding: one of the paradigms of react is that it makes it simple to share and re-use components. What managers often don't realize is that this also makes it difficult to write components to be shared and re-used. So they only see the benefit of react, but not the cost.
That being said, react can be helpful for more complex web apps, but for a normal website, it is maybe not an ideal choice.
By refusing to work with HTML and the DOM, React makes it harder to share and reuse components
That depends. It's simpler to share with other react-apps. With everyone else, not so much. In any case, it doesn't seem a coincidence that Facebook developed a framework based on a technical lock-in.
That's an interesting definition of "share" you got there
That's an interesting opinion you got there.