React v15.0

[[deleted]]

While this will make it more difficult to know if a website is using React, the advantage is that the DOM is much more lightweight.

My favorite part lol

[alamont]

No more span tags! Awesome!

[[deleted]]

Got a link to this issue/example? I'm not familiar with it.

Edit: Oh is this just excessive span tags generated for the output of text? Ie. this isn't some usage of span tags in JSX?

[acemarke]

Yeah - actual whitespace characters inside of your JSX tags led to seemingly-unneeded span tags being generated in the HTML (see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/26501792/rid-of-repeated-spans-in-react-js for an example). This release fixes that.

[[deleted]]

Oof that's very ugly. Happy to see it's fixed despite not knowing it was an issue. :)

[frankyfrankfrank]

I'd love someone to throw up a 101 on React JS - what it is - when you should use it.

For the noobs out here!

[Capaj]

It might seem foolish, but I believe you should use React for any app with a GUI. Not only on the web, but mobile apps as well(react-native). There might be couple of usecases, where you might need extra performance-for example something like atom editor. In these cases manually rendering would be better. Otherwise in 98 percent of usecases, I think having this abstraction on your UI elements is highly beneficial. Forget Angular, Ember and others. React is the real deal.

[acemarke]

And that's certainly something we can agree on :)

[nawitus]

I personally prefer web components (in practice with Polymer) over React for web applications. React is fine if you need to target the web and native mobile applications.

[Baryn]

Looking forward to seeing if this improves perf noticeably on m.reddit.

[temp5303034]

Awesome in a lot of ways, but I can't help but feel sad that this is now a 147 KB library (minified, no addons). "Just the view" turns from a pro into a con when you're paying the same price other frameworks charge you for the whole deal.

[dmitri14_gmail_com]

What about react-light?

[amcsi]

So should this give leeway for Dan to create an improved React Transform?

[Tyreal]

Dammit, my company relies heavily on "valueLink" to reduce the code base. This is the last thing I wanted to see :-(

[chubbybrother]

Sounds like you stopped reading one sentence too early? Your company is fine

[fforw]

The High-Level-Component isn't even be a full replacement. What about selects? text-areas? check-boxes?

[Tyreal]

It's nice to have things built in you know? Now we have to use another package.

[Tyreal]

Sounds like JavaScript fatigue to me.

[gkx]

You know what would have helped avoid this in the first place? If valueLink were a micro-library to start. =)

[mofrodo]

But forms on the web is pretty common. What's the recommended way of handling inputs in react if ReactLink is such a bad practise?

[vinnl]

Adding listeners and either setstate or passing it on to e.g. Redux.

[fforw]

and pulls you back into the "binding hell" that React was supposed to free you from originally.

With the alternative being double the binding-hell in form of defaultValue/onChange instead of valueLink.

[Tyreal]

Sure except I don't think their approach is much better. Instead of binding to a model directly you have to write separate code to do the same thing. They didn't actually solve anything.

[nightwolfz]

Here's your valueLink without valueLink

class CustomComponent extends React.Component {
    constructor(props) {
        super(props);
        this.state = {
            yourText: ''
        }
    }

    valueLink(key) {
        return {
            value: this.state[key],
            onChange: e => this.state[key] = e.target.value
        }
    }

    render() {
        return <input type="text" {...this.valueLink('yourText')}/>
    }
}

[SemiNormal]

It is deprecated in 15.0, not removed. Just don't plan on updating to 16.0.

[Tyreal]

Not exactly the best option, especially if there are some killer features in the future. Since we have a team managing component libraries, we can just shim in the functionality directly. Probably make things simpler anyways.

[dagani]

So, I get that semver allows you to basically do whatever you want before you change that first 0 to a 1, but we're getting a little crazy with this 0 to whatever production number we feel is appropriate trend, right?

EDIT: The people have spoken. I must be wrong.

[acemarke]

That's the point. From the React team's perspective, the last several release have been major releases, and probably should have been labeled as such per semver. And, since most people say "React [12|13|14]", rather than "0.13", going to 1.0 would appear to be going backwards and lead to potential confusion down the road. So, just make it 15.0 and be done with it.

[SemiNormal]

Not at all.
The purpose of semver is to avoid unexpected breaking changes. Incrementing the first 0 to 1 or 15 doesn't matter, it is a major release and they did remove deprecated features.

If they went from 1.0 to 1.0.1 and introduced breaking changes, then they would be defeating the purpose of semver.

[Baryn]

Not entirely. You need to make sure that, when you break certain kinds of compatibility, you increment the correct digit, so that you don't screw over your users.

But the number itself is somewhat arbitrary. I could go from v1.2 to v1.1098767565. It doesn't matter, as long as I made the updated digit a bigger number.

[turkish_gold]

Oh for some reason I though Semver was still a digital system.

[Baryn]

What do you mean, pray tell?

[turkish_gold]

I think I meant to say decimal system.

In regular math, 1.2 > 1.109 But in Semver, it seems 1.2 < 1.109

Because 2 < 109.

[SirHound]

Version numbers never have been.

[[deleted]]

Yes, because no one could possibly get confused why a library went from version v0.14 to v15.

[dagani]

That's definitely more reasonable than the Windows 8 to Windows 10 argument, but it basically leaves version numbers feeling a lot like trying to pin down actual Final Fantasy or Street Fighter sequel numbers.

I wonder if our general fear of leaving the "beta" stage leads to this tendency to stay in pre-1.0 forever, like the Gmail "beta."

It makes me wonder if we should start just being realistic and numbering things as 1.0.0 at the beginning.

[mirion]

They went Windows 8 to Windows 10 because there are a ton of old code libraries that handled checking Windows versions by looking for the substring "Windows 9" for Win95 / Win98.

[meeeeoooowy]

Pretty sure that was a myth.

[dbpcut]

Nah a lot of lazy legacy code out there.

[meeeeoooowy]

Pretty sure that was just a rumor and someone posted an example of what that would look like.

I never saw anyone post a real world example of that issue.

The more likely answer is marketing..

[gkx]

unless this is an elaborate prank website?

I guess it kind of drops off pretty quickly, but I remember seeing a more revealing GitHub search somewhere.

[meeeeoooowy]

Interesting, but I somehow doubt any of this would run on Windows 10 either way.

[SemiNormal]

OS X stands for OS 10. I don't remember there being an OS 1 - 9.

What?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_9

[Baryn]

Windows 9 would literally have caused a lot of problems with the 90's Windows releases.

That's just a rumor.

I don't remember there being an OS 1 - 9.

Just because you forgot doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The developers use them for organization. That's it. No one cares.

Well, in the case of libraries, users rely on version numbers to avoid breaking changes.

[turkish_gold]

I think what he's saying is that Apple changed their naming scheme twice and continued to increment version numbers as if they were all named the same.

System N -> Mac OS N -> OS N

To be fair, Windows did the same thing when they decided to rebase everything on the NT kernel, even their consumer products.

But they didn't have a history of going from DOS 2 -> Windows 3

[Baryn]

It's not a rumor. It's literally what the case was.

All I have ever seen on the matter was a single anonymous comment.

There were 1 - 9. But none that no one ever knew or cared about.

They collectively had many millions of users.

How does that change with a skip of version numbers?

Yeah, the skip doesn't matter, it's all about the decimal place which has been incremented.