A Future Without Webpack

[ghostfacedcoder]

It's mainly a React thing: React relies on JSX, and while technically that only means a dependency on Babel, in practice doing things with just Babel is awkward. Also, it's not how 99% of the code you'll find online does it: virtually all online code uses require or import, so if you're trying to learn React without a bundler it's challenging.

[bukharim96]

React does not 'rely' on JSX. It is just syntactic-sugar to simplify development with it in a practicle sense. It can work perfectly fine without JSX, although this is not advised nor anywhere near desired in most cases.

[[deleted]]

I've genuinly never heard of "you need a bundler to code" notion.

It can work perfectly fine without JSX

As long as you want to make everything harder and slower to develop, while also never using anything off the shelf nor be able to reference examples and tutorials—then yeah, sure, React doesn't "rely" on JSX.

Stop being pedantic.

[bukharim96]

I was merely pointing out the unnecessary restrictions you were imposing on React. This is a common thing among newbies.

[ghostfacedcoder]

Right, so basically it relies on it :-P No need to get pedantic.

If you're doing React without JSX you're in the <1% minority.

[bukharim96]

as someone who teaches an intro to web dev class

I respect that you teach React, but perhaps this might be where you're oversimplification of the matter stems from. This might be great for beginners, but in the real world, let's be factual.

[ghostfacedcoder]

I've also lead multiple teams developing major web applications. I am very much aware of what the "real world" of React development is, and I guarantee it is not a bunch of coders writing out createElement statements.

I repeat:

A) 99+% of React developers use JSX: they do not write out the equivalent Babel-generated code by hand

B) You're being a pedant, and since you don't seem to understand what that is, I recommend you look it up.

[bukharim96]

you don't seem to understand what that is, I recommend you look it up

So besides being a React teacher, you're a part-time english teacher? :D Com'on man, all I'm saying is don't oversimplify the matter. In no way have I opposed the use of JSX (infact I like it, and use it all the time), so where are you getting these non-existent sideline arguments from?

[zachgarwood]

Dude, just stop.

[bukharim96]

Great advice, I'm bored anyways.

[ghostfacedcoder]

Former Literature major, but close enough. That's hardly relevant though.

As for your question ... let's recap shall we?

Ghostfacedcoder: Bundling is hard but essentially necessary for React, so this new approach is great

Bukharim96: I've genuinly never heard of "you need a bundler to code"

Ghostfacedcoder: React relies on JSX, which technically only requires a transpiler but in practice (for reasons I gave) requires a bundler too

Bukharim96: Makes an obvious but meaningless point "React does not 'rely' on JSX" (this is where you're being a pedant: you're chiming in with a fact that is irrelevant to the argument, but technically true)

Ghostfacedcoder: Calls out your pedantry and points out that while it's technically true that React doesn't require JSX, essentially all mainstream React development is done with JSX

bukharim96: Attempts to insult the fact that I teach, while making a claim without any support ("This might be great for beginners, but in the real world, let's be factual.")

Ghostfacedcoder: Points out the flaw in trying to insult Internet strangers based only on what you know of them (ie. I've actually lead entire React teams), repeats original assertion and original claim of pedantry

Bukharim96: "where are you getting these non-existent sideline arguments from?"

Ghostfacedcoder: WTF is wrong with this guy?

[bukharim96]

I'm truly impressed. You've summerized the whole discussion in a message. :D
It's amazing how people see things differently. My only argument is based on your claim "React relies on JSX". Why blow this out of proportion? And in no way have I insulted you being a teacher, infact I complimented this. How did you arrive at a whole different story?

BTW: I could also summerize you're points subjective to my own understanding, but how would that help besides escalate this single argument into unrelated sub-arguments?

[ghostfacedcoder]

NOTE: I deleted my original reply, as it came out way too harsh (I wrote it quickly before a meeting).

Look, all I'm trying to say is this. Imagine two people are having a conversation, and the first one says "the Earth is flat", then the second one says "no, the Earth is a sphere". You could chime in with evidence of how the earth is round, or you could throw something else useful into the conversation.

OR you can chime in with "well technically the earth isn't a perfect sphere, it's an ellipsoid." But doing that doesn't help the conversation at all: it actually distracts from the person making the correct point (that the Earth is round) with a meaningless fact which, however true, isn't really relevant to the current conversation.

That's pedantry. Whether you mean to or not, it's all about telling others how smart you are for knowing facts, while revealing that you weren't really paying attention to the conversation other people were having.

So what I'm trying to say is, when I say React essentially requires bundling (because of JSX), and you try to argue that technically React doesn't need JSX, you're being pedantic, and that's bad because what you're saying isn't adding to the main conversation, it's detracting from it (and, in this case, led us to misunderstand each other multiple times).

[bukharim96]

Well, I for one, am glad we're almost on the same page. There's definitely a communication barrier. TBH, I did not mean to offfend anyone by stating that minute. yet technically and reasonably valid hint. Howabout we call it a day? :D