What is better? Jquery? It comes with its own can of worms and React designers had solid reasoning to migrate away from immediate DOM modification. In general UI is hard. Nice features like compositing, variable width fonts, reflow etc come with the underlying mechanisms that are pretty complicated and once something behaves different to the expectations it might be hard to understand why.
jQuery: 88KB, standard everywhere, one entity responsible for all of it, people know what it is and what it does, if it breaks you know what went wrong and who to blame.
Literally anything built with NPM: megabytes? tens of megabytes? in size, totally inscrutable, code being pulled in from hundreds of megabytes of code in tens of thousands of packages from hundreds or thousands of people of unknown (and unknowable) competence and trustworthiness, if it breaks not only do you not know who to blame but you probably have literally no idea what wrong.
It Depends, as always. The problem React was originally solving was that DOM updates cause re-rendering which can be slow; jquery (usually) works directly in the DOM, so applications heavy in updates don't perform well.
So initially an equivalent React and jQuery app would have React look a lot faster, due to smart / batched DOM updates. However, because React is so fast it made people create apps differently.
As always in software development, an application will grow to fill up available performance / memory. If people were to develop on intentionally constricted computers they would do things differently.
(IIRC, at Facebook they'll throttle the internet on some days to 3g speeds to force this exact thing. Tangentially related, at Netflix (iirc) they have Chaos Monkey which randomly shuts down servers and causes problems, so errors are a day to day thing instead of an exception they've not foreseen).
React is just so, so much nicer to work with. It's easy to be dismissive if you've never had to develop UIs with jQuery and didn't experience yourself the transition to React which is a million times better in terms of developer experience.
I feel like people that don't build UIs themselves think of them too much in a completely functional way as in "it's just buttons and form inputs that do X", and forget about the massive complexity, edge cases, aesthetic requirements, accessibility, rendering on different viewports, huge statefulness, and so on.
Old is better is just not true here. React is a dream. Synthetic eventing, batched updates, and DOM node re-use are so good. I rolled my own DOM renderer recently and remembered a lot of problems from the past that I would not like to re-visit.
Write your own framework-like code with just jQuery and watch it turn into a pile of mush. React is many things, but it is absolutely better than jQuery or Backbone. People always mis-use new technology; that isn't React's fault.
To an extent, UI was solved in 1991 by Visual Basic. Yes, complex state management is not the best in a purely event-based programming model. Yes, you didn’t get a powerful document layout engine seamlessly integrated to the UI. Yes, theming your components was more difficult. And so on. But… if the alternative is what we have now? I’m not sure.
One big disadvantage with Visual Basic (and similar visual form designers) is that you can't put the result in version control and diff or merge it in any meaningful way.
UI is hard because you're using a hyper text language with fewer features than were the standard in the 60s. Then with styling on top of that, then with a scripting language on top of that.
Reading Computer Lib/Dream Machine over the holidays and I wonder where it all went so wrong.
Free markets hate good software. "Good" meaning secure, stable, and boring.
On both ends.
Software developers hate boring software for pragmatic HR-driven career reasons and because devs are apes and apes are faddish and like the shiny new thing.
And commercial hegemony tends to go to the companies that slap something together with duct tape and bubble gum and rush it out the door.
So you get clusterfucks like Unix winning out against elegantly designed Lisp systems, and clusterfucks like Linux winning out against elegantly designed Unix systems, and clusterfucks like Docker and microservices and whatever other "innovations" "winning out" over elegantly design Linux package management and normal webservers and whatnot.
At some point someone important will figure out that no software should ever need to be updated for any reason ever, and a software update should carry the same stigma as...I don't know...adultery once carried. Or an oil spill. Or cooking the books. Whatever.
But then also it's important to be realistic. If anyone ever goes back and fixes any of this, well, a whole lot of very smart people are going to go unemployed.
Free markets hate unchanging software. Software churn generates activity and revenue, and the basic goal of the game is to be the one controlling the change. Change is good when you have your hands on the knobs and levers, bad when someone else does. Organizations try to steer their users away from having dependencies on changes that they don't control. "You're still using some of XYZ Corp's tools along with ABC's suite? In the upcoming release, ABC we will help you drop that XYZ stuff ..."
That brings to mind one common computer scientest fallacy - that elegence is an end to itself. It may share some properties which make it practical but unfortunately it is not in practice.
Recursive solutions are more elegant but you still use a stack and while loop to not smash the stack.
Scheme is properly tail-recursive and has been around since 1975. Most (all?) Common Lisp implementations have proper tail recursion. Clojure has tail call optimization for simple cases and only if you explicitly ask for it, but it gets you most of the way there most of the time.
So there are reasons to prefer more imperative languages and their systems, but stack-smashing isn't one of them.
