> but developers "fixate" on it because it matters to users
Then it's not a fixation. If, for your application, the difference between a 1-50ms interaction and a 150-400ms interaction matters, then you have reason to for that interaction optimize the performance. If your entire app is like that, then you're probably a particular type of app (superhuman, miro, linear, etc.). Don't get me wrong, I pay for superhuman because it feels like a native app and gets many things right. I would not pay for hey.com. But hey.com is actually relatively successful out there despite its sometimes-perceptible latency. Oh, and superhuman has perceptible latency too. Any time something needs to come from the server it takes that round trip time regardless whether or not that thing is JSON or HTML. The delta between those two is pretty small now-a-days, and typically not perceivable.
> If you haven't got state that affects the UI, maybe you're the unicorn. I've found that websites always need that kind of thing (tabs, radios, nested dropdowns) and once you have something like that you either have the state only on the server and the latency is high enough to bother users
I mean, we do. Our forms are pretty sophisticated. Things add/remove show/hide, and they update live as others make changes. The state just doesn't need to be on the client. You say maybe we're a unicorn, I say maybe people should consider whether or not they are a unicorn too, and maybe those unicorns are just horses developers think are unicorns. They may just be a lot more common than you (and others) think. We all like to think that latency matters to our app because we all read that article saying that Xms in latency cost $Y, but none of us stopped to ask if that article was about our app.
> But you don't need to know the list of tags or attributes or the escaping rules or the rules about which tags are self-closing and which aren't or ... . You just use React components and follow their documentation.
I'm not sure how to say this... but literally none of this is typically significant and certainly not any more significant than it is in React. In React you still need to know the tags and the attributes. Escaping rules? Yea, you need to know those too -- just the JavaScript ones. Self-closing tags? Just don't use them, or do if you know them, or use something like HAML/Slim/any other templating language to do away with those nuances. I'm not sure that arguing that HTML is hard to learn is a very effective platform. It's the thing that grade school kids learn to make web pages. Sure, there's edge cases, and understanding semantics is hard, but you don't need any of that.
> I suspect the average React app probably is slower, partly because React sites are generally newer...
This isn't why. It's because it requires a significant amount of JavaScript to load and evaluate before you see anything. That amount can get larger with time.
> It's O(1) work though, or very close to it. I was the guy that used the existing build that someone else had come up with before I started working on that codebase...
Right. That stuff is O(1)-ish, and maybe it's stabilized some, but having gone through the various transitions, I can say it's not free. Nothing is though, upgrading Rails took us a couple hours this time around because of a breaking change for our 30 apps. React comes with, as a baseline, significant complexity that is O(n): Client/server separation (APIs or phantom-APIs like Next.JS has), state entangled with presentation (See the whole smart vs dumb components for an attempt to address this), massive asynchronous concerns that cannot be fully abstracted away (suspense and the like), and probably more.
Folks can't see it until they step away from it and look back. I've done that for the last 3 years. Unless a person has done it, I wouldn't expect my arguments to land. Folks see things or they don't. Again, I'm only here to say: there's something to see that you may not see yet. I'm sorry I don't have anything more convincing.
> If, for your application, the difference between a 1-50ms interaction and a 150-400ms interaction matters, then you have reason to for that interaction optimize the performance. If your entire app is like that, then you're probably a particular type of app (superhuman, miro, linear, etc.).
> We all like to think that latency matters to our app because we all read that article saying that Xms in latency cost $Y, but none of us stopped to ask if that article was about our app.
Disagree, I've found that even if the page is, like, tax forms, latency changes the feel of it and affects how the user feels about your site, even if they wouldn't consciously say anything about the speed. I used to be similarly sceptical about a lot of design work - I felt like designers were just messing with the visuals for no reason - but once I'd seen the before-and-after with a good designer I realised how much difference it makes.
> Any time something needs to come from the server it takes that round trip time regardless whether or not that thing is JSON or HTML.
Sure. So e.g. one thing that shocked me is how important it is to have a loading state for your form submit buttons, even though it only shows for a couple of hundred milliseconds and you'd think it wouldn't matter. But it does, and that's the sort of thing that React-based UIs tend to nudge you towards doing by default, whereas with server-side rendering often it's a bit more of an extra step.
(A server-side rendering framework will probably have a nice loading state for basic happy path form submit buttons where they've put time and effort into polishing. But it will be ad-hoc rather than idiomatic, because that kind of detailed client-side state is fundamentally cutting against the grain of a server-side framework. Once you go slightly off the beaten path, into image buttons or custom button components or what have you, it becomes harder and harder).
> Escaping rules? Yea, you need to know those too -- just the JavaScript ones.
You always need to know the JavaScript ones. So the choice is between learning the JavaScript ones or learning the JavaScript ones plus some other ones as well.
> Just don't use them, or do if you know them, or use something like HAML/Slim/any other templating language to do away with those nuances.
Then you've got another language with its own syntax that you're learning. Writing everything in the same language really does help (admittedly I don't know how many other people stay away from JSX and do everything programmatically, but doing React and never writing HTML is a genuine option, easier than doing e.g. Rails and never writing JavaScript IME).
> I'm not sure that arguing that HTML is hard to learn is a very effective platform. It's the thing that grade school kids learn to make web pages. Sure, there's edge cases, and understanding semantics is hard, but you don't need any of that.
Well, we started this conversation with you complaining about React devs who "don't know the first thing about html". I don't know how literally you meant that, but my position is that learning just enough to get by is just fine, and putting more time into studying the intricacies of HTML does not generally have a good return these days. To the extent that React (or Rails, or anything) allows you to dodge learning those details, I consider that a point in its favour rather than against.
> it requires a significant amount of JavaScript to load and evaluate before you see anything.
It doesn't though. Like, I don't know how much effort it took to get the right build config etc. to make it work in my case, but it absolutely can be very fast. I'm happy to believe it's easy to make a React site that's slow, but it certainly doesn't require any superhuman effort to make one that's fast. I genuinely don't know what you have to do differently, because it didn't feel like I was doing anything special.
(At a guess I'd say committing full-throatedly to React and doing everything their way, rather than trying to half-ass things with useEffect etc. - just because that's the main thing we possibly did differently from "usual", and because most of the people who have a bad time with React seem to be the people who don't want to dive all the way in - but that really is just a guess)
> I've found that even if the page is, like, tax forms, latency changes the feel of it and affects how the user feels about your site, even if they wouldn't consciously say anything about the speed.
I agree with this, but probably wouldn't about specific numbers or use cases. By the way, one of the forms on our app round trips in 75ms when selecting a radio button that controls which set of fields is visible below it. On the "Slow 4G" throttling setting in Chrome, the time increases to 620ms or so, which is noticeable enough for the interaction to not feel good. Our particular forms-over-data application is not typically used on mobile (there's too much data to enter), so this isn't an issue for us. It's all contextual. If it were an issue, we'd either use an SPA-like library for our forms, or we would send all the HTML to the client and use JavaScript rules to control visibility. It's one part of our app. We wouldn't let that singular use-case dictate our entire stack.
> A server-side rendering framework will probably have a nice loading state... Once you go slightly off the beaten path... it becomes harder and harder
Indeed, this is effectively built in to Turbo. There's nothing special about it, you add CSS rules (turbo adds and removes classes). That'd apply to image buttons or anything else you want to throw at it. You're making assertions here about it getting more challenging, but I can't tell if that's from personal experience or if it's hypothesis.
If a person started their career doing React and is still doing React, that person would have certain beliefs about things that wouldn't be true. I get the impression that most people I'm engaging with here haven't actually done what we're doing but they are somehow convinced it cannot work or that our use case (line of business forms over data) is so special that it can't possibly apply to anyone else.
> Then you've got another language with its own syntax that you're learning
Yes, HAML is a new language. Our designers can work with it. It's not much more complicated than, say, markdown. Learning new things is what we do, every day. There are certain developers that prefer to hone their skills in the one thing they know how to do. They're the ones that put "React Developer" in their twitter or LinkedIn profile. That's fine. That's a career path. I don't work with those people by choice.
> Well, we started this conversation with you complaining about React devs who "don't know the first thing about html". I don't know how literally you meant that...
Got it. It was somewhat flippant, I admit that. They probably know the first thing, but the concerns you're raising about tags and escaping and that sort of thing honestly somewhat reinforce my flippant assertion. If those are the things we are concerned about our developers having to know then I wouldn't want them anywhere near anything our users would touch. I think we may be used to working with different calibers of developers. I get that they're all over the map now, so this is just a another contextual difference most likely.
> ...studying the intricacies of HTML...
It's not sanskrit. I'm rather confounded by the FUD around HTML here.
> It doesn't though.
Ok. I've done it, so I know exactly what it takes, at least in the 4 or 5 different apps I built with various versions of React and friends. I also know that aside from the fastest machines on the fastest networks, there's not much you can do aside from server rendering to address the first paint issue/LCP issue. But yes, once you have the initial JS bundle, the rest of the site is generally faster. By the way, one of our 30 or so web apps we have composed into a single application with nginx/SSI still uses React. LCP is 1.2s on my M4 Max and on a page with slightly more data that doesn't have React, the LCP is 0.7s. Yes, the bundle is optimized. These aren't awful numbers at all, but I'm on the fastest machine there is pretty much. There's no loading shimmer stuff like AirBNB does. Speaking of user experience, that stuff is absolute garbage and I can't wait until folks realize it. Of course, they'd have to embrace server-side rendering though... :)
Just to be reiterate: I think there are plenty of good use cases for React like libraries/frameworks. I just think there are fewer than people think.
> It's one part of our app. We wouldn't let that singular use-case dictate our entire stack.
Well sure, but in that case it's no longer "it's solving a problem we don't have". It's solving a problem that may be low on your priority list, that you maybe choose to tolerate, or solve in a more cumbersome way, but it's still an undeniable pain point.
And if you flip the question, I just haven't seen the compelling case for server side rendering. If you have a specific case where something else does something you can't do with React, or does something a lot better than React, then of course do that something else, and if that something else happens to use server-side rendering then maybe it will be a tolerable tradeoff. But I honestly think that if React or similar had come first, we'd never have invented server-side frameworks as we know them (which is not to say that we wouldn't have e.g. a Ruby based convention-over-configuration framework - but I think it would have a state model closer to React's).
> You're making assertions here about it getting more challenging, but I can't tell if that's from personal experience or if it's hypothesis.
It's personal experience, but perhaps outdated, and I never was hugely into Rails specifically. The last time I checked in was several years into wailing and gnashing teeth about people fleeing to React, but only really offering a smattering of ad-hoc fixes to specific pain points. Maybe they've found themselves a good unified state abstraction now, but I think it would be a real struggle especially for a framework that isn't really component-oriented in the way I see it (and indeed prides itself on embracing HTTP and having routes corresponding to pages).
> Yes, HAML is a new language. Our designers can work with it. It's not much more complicated than, say, markdown. Learning new things is what we do, every day. There are certain developers that prefer to hone their skills in the one thing they know how to do. They're the ones that put "React Developer" in their twitter or LinkedIn profile. That's fine. That's a career path. I don't work with those people by choice.
I used to pride myself on knowing dozens of languages, but I've come to see much of that as superficial and pointless. Learning new things that expand the way you think is worthwhile. Learning new tools that you can apply generally is too. Learning yet another slightly different templating syntax or curly brace programming language usually isn't. And some tools have enough depth to them that you can spend years and still learn new, useful things. I don't know that React is one of them - I don't know it as well as I'd like - but these days I generally find it more rewarding to learn a deeper corner of something that I can use a lot, than a new standalone thing that doesn't have any general lessons to impart.
> Well sure, but in that case it's no longer "it's solving a problem we don't have". It's solving a problem that may be low on your priority list, that you maybe choose to tolerate, or solve in a more cumbersome way, but it's still an undeniable pain point.
Yes, in that case, i.e., if it were a problem we had. It's NOT a problem we have though. That's my point. Not currently. Not in our context.
> But I honestly think that if React or similar had come first, we'd never have invented server-side frameworks as we know them
Not exactly React, but there was ActiveX, Flash, and Java Applets. Thick clients came first. It wasn't until IE6 where there some AJAX was viable. React came later to address additional shortcomings: procedurally updating the state of the document via jquery got complicated, and large organizations with poor development practices (e.g., facebook) struggled to maintain control of their application. They came up with React to help with this, and it did, but it brought its own host of problems. Declarative UI was what we always had with server rendering. They just allowed it to update. Btw, this isn't a new idea. We had something like this with ASP.NET as well, but that included the server.
Meanwhile, people like Chris McCord had already built a syncing library for Rails to solve these problems and, being fed up with the performance at that point, went to Elixir where he eventually built Phoenix LiveView. By then, React already had significant market share. Turbo's previous incarnation came out before then and its current one came out around that time or slightly after. Combined with Ruby's performance improvements over time, it was quite viable for many apps.
Also, note what's happening in React -- it's moving towards more server rendering. People realized they lost something by doing client only and they're trying to get back to it. Remix is an ode to the simplicity of old (which is really the simplicity of now, but they don't want to give up their React Components). I can't blame them in a way, React is a lot of fun to write a lot of the times.
> Maybe they've found themselves a good unified state abstraction now...
We've always had the database. That's insufficient for highly interactive applications where you need client-side state, which is likely what you mean by "unified". So yes, if you need "unified" state, and specifically the ability to change your UI based on changes to that state, React is great, or any of the other libs. The author was specifically concerned about React's current state (e.g. legacy IE6 support) and I'm specifically concerned about people reaching for React when they don't need it. That's because I've done it, I've seen people do it, and I see people continuing to preach the React orthodoxy which will lead to more people doing it. This thread is full of it.
Whether or not a person recognizes it, HTMX, Turbo, LiveView and its kind have greatly narrowed that gap. They've made server rendering just as capable at highly-interactive UIs in many more cases than many people think.
> I used to pride myself on knowing dozens of languages, but I've come to see much of that as superficial and pointless.
Sure, I can relate to this. But this is different than spreading FUD about having to learn a new language. That's easy. That's the easiest thing we have to do. I'm not suggesting to do it flippantly. I'm suggesting that sometimes it's worth it. When it's worth it, you do it and it's not a big deal.
Then it's not a fixation. If, for your application, the difference between a 1-50ms interaction and a 150-400ms interaction matters, then you have reason to for that interaction optimize the performance. If your entire app is like that, then you're probably a particular type of app (superhuman, miro, linear, etc.). Don't get me wrong, I pay for superhuman because it feels like a native app and gets many things right. I would not pay for hey.com. But hey.com is actually relatively successful out there despite its sometimes-perceptible latency. Oh, and superhuman has perceptible latency too. Any time something needs to come from the server it takes that round trip time regardless whether or not that thing is JSON or HTML. The delta between those two is pretty small now-a-days, and typically not perceivable.
> If you haven't got state that affects the UI, maybe you're the unicorn. I've found that websites always need that kind of thing (tabs, radios, nested dropdowns) and once you have something like that you either have the state only on the server and the latency is high enough to bother users
I mean, we do. Our forms are pretty sophisticated. Things add/remove show/hide, and they update live as others make changes. The state just doesn't need to be on the client. You say maybe we're a unicorn, I say maybe people should consider whether or not they are a unicorn too, and maybe those unicorns are just horses developers think are unicorns. They may just be a lot more common than you (and others) think. We all like to think that latency matters to our app because we all read that article saying that Xms in latency cost $Y, but none of us stopped to ask if that article was about our app.
> But you don't need to know the list of tags or attributes or the escaping rules or the rules about which tags are self-closing and which aren't or ... . You just use React components and follow their documentation.
I'm not sure how to say this... but literally none of this is typically significant and certainly not any more significant than it is in React. In React you still need to know the tags and the attributes. Escaping rules? Yea, you need to know those too -- just the JavaScript ones. Self-closing tags? Just don't use them, or do if you know them, or use something like HAML/Slim/any other templating language to do away with those nuances. I'm not sure that arguing that HTML is hard to learn is a very effective platform. It's the thing that grade school kids learn to make web pages. Sure, there's edge cases, and understanding semantics is hard, but you don't need any of that.
> I suspect the average React app probably is slower, partly because React sites are generally newer...
This isn't why. It's because it requires a significant amount of JavaScript to load and evaluate before you see anything. That amount can get larger with time.
> It's O(1) work though, or very close to it. I was the guy that used the existing build that someone else had come up with before I started working on that codebase...
Right. That stuff is O(1)-ish, and maybe it's stabilized some, but having gone through the various transitions, I can say it's not free. Nothing is though, upgrading Rails took us a couple hours this time around because of a breaking change for our 30 apps. React comes with, as a baseline, significant complexity that is O(n): Client/server separation (APIs or phantom-APIs like Next.JS has), state entangled with presentation (See the whole smart vs dumb components for an attempt to address this), massive asynchronous concerns that cannot be fully abstracted away (suspense and the like), and probably more.
Folks can't see it until they step away from it and look back. I've done that for the last 3 years. Unless a person has done it, I wouldn't expect my arguments to land. Folks see things or they don't. Again, I'm only here to say: there's something to see that you may not see yet. I'm sorry I don't have anything more convincing.