> Sure: traditional non-SPA websites are not immune to this pitfall. Someone might load your website, have a form open for many weeks, and then submit it after their session expired or the API changed. But that’s a much more limited exposure to failure than in the SPA case.
I don't really understand why this is a much more limited exposure to failure and he doesn't really elaborate why this is the case. It seems like the cause for failure in both cases are identical and the only reason that the SPA one would be a more likely scenario is simply due to the prevalence of SPAs, rather than any technical reason.
Overall I broadly agree with the article; that React is often wasted on webpages that simply don't need it. That a lot of technology that is plenty serviceable today is overlooked because it's not 'cool.' I actually think php is great (even though writing it isn't very fun to me) and it was one of my first introductions in creating dynamic webpages when I was a kid outside of some cgi scripts like NewsPro.
Vanilla javascript today is very robust but it's not exactly someone will end up writing a lot of unless they're going out of their way to do so. Web components might very well fit the needs someone might have for their website... but that doesn't really matter if you already know how to use components in React and you have to learn web components. There's a lot of momentum towards the known, especially when that known technology is valuable to employers.
Ultimately I think that while it's generally excessive, people gravitate towards what they're comfortable with and what makes their development life easier. Sure, this website may not require a React app, but it's something that I'm very familiar with and it's easy for me to create a website with it. It's easy for me to create interactive and dynamic elements in a system that is designed for that purpose. And the reward for having this knowledge is market value. This will always be a problem, regardless of what web technology is popular at any given moment.
I don't really understand why this is a much more limited exposure to failure and he doesn't really elaborate why this is the case. It seems like the cause for failure in both cases are identical and the only reason that the SPA one would be a more likely scenario is simply due to the prevalence of SPAs, rather than any technical reason.
Overall I broadly agree with the article; that React is often wasted on webpages that simply don't need it. That a lot of technology that is plenty serviceable today is overlooked because it's not 'cool.' I actually think php is great (even though writing it isn't very fun to me) and it was one of my first introductions in creating dynamic webpages when I was a kid outside of some cgi scripts like NewsPro.
Vanilla javascript today is very robust but it's not exactly someone will end up writing a lot of unless they're going out of their way to do so. Web components might very well fit the needs someone might have for their website... but that doesn't really matter if you already know how to use components in React and you have to learn web components. There's a lot of momentum towards the known, especially when that known technology is valuable to employers.
Ultimately I think that while it's generally excessive, people gravitate towards what they're comfortable with and what makes their development life easier. Sure, this website may not require a React app, but it's something that I'm very familiar with and it's easy for me to create a website with it. It's easy for me to create interactive and dynamic elements in a system that is designed for that purpose. And the reward for having this knowledge is market value. This will always be a problem, regardless of what web technology is popular at any given moment.