Talk:React (JavaScript library)

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

JavaScript Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject JavaScript, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to JavaScript, and to the development of user scripts for use on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JavaScriptWikipedia:WikiProject JavaScriptTemplate:WikiProject JavaScriptJavaScript articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 January 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

The first statement in the criticism section has no supporting reference (meaning the part about it being high; the reference on the 2nd statement merely supports the fact that a virtual DOM is used). It is also context-free (high compared to what? how high?). As such I think it stands to either be removed or detail added to make the section meaningful. Certainly the virtual DOM is only a part of the overall memory footprint of the framework. It would be good to compare it to the memory use for an equivalent UI implemented directly in native code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.112.17 (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's self explainable. If you have a separate "copy" of the DOM then you consume more memory then by just using DOM. It's not possible to not use DOM at all. --Nux (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily that keeping a separate copy is bad (in the end it's usually negligible), it's that iterating through any DOM is bad ^[1]. Htmlghozt (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of memory? It is always bad. Especially on mobile devices. But yes, it can have benefits in some cases (ease of use mostly). That's why some libraries use VDOM. But you pay the price for this. --Nux (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to find more information to see if I could find accurate information on the example size of a Virtual DOM in memory and ended up coming short. What I did find was an enormous discussion on DOM diffing strategies. Htmlghozt (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the statement is that it has high memory (RAM) requirements doesn't have enough context. The argument you consume more memory using an abstraction than utilizing a built-in API is really a criticism of all libraries/frameworks Htmlghozt (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Definitely not all frameworks. Not all frameworks use VDOM, the concept is relatively new and even some new frameworks don't use VDOM and are reported to be even faster. In the end after all VDOM diffs you still need to do a DOM operation. There are frameworks that try to optimize diffs when building the application and just skip VDOM diffs. --Nux (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any module used is going to add overhead, as you're adding more code that needs to be processed, which requires more memory. The statement high memory (RAM) requirements doesn't have any meaning because high doesn't have context, using any library/framework in conjunction with the DOM is going to be higher than utilizing the DOM alone. I'm suggesting that the statement is tautological without context. Htmlghozt (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find memory benchmarks, but an alternative restructuring could be The Virtual DOM has notably high memory (ram) requirements when compared to other DOM manipulation strategies. - ref needed -. Htmlghozt (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

React works poorly with the browser's built-in component model. Citation: See issue being tracked here: React issue #9242

Alternative libraries which rely on browser standards to implement their components. Citation: UIBuilder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.67.147 (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I did take out the criticism section as it seemed very vague and not well-sourced (before noticing this discussion). Llightex (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have a section, explaining how this library is related to the reactive programming ideas. How is the react framework related to reactive extensions? They share similar ideas, don't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.250.121.176 (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have a section, explaining React's tight relationship to the javascript extension language TypeScript. Fashoom (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on that, there is not a so strong relation between Typescript and React (you can perfectly write React Code without knowing anything about Typescript). However, having a Paragraph about Flow Check System could be relevant. Lolobosse (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Architecture beyond HTML" seems poorly written and not very relevant. Instead, a section about React Native would seem better, as React Native has gained a lot of attention.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncusa367 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ncusa367, I even think that React Native deserves a whole article because it really gained in popularity during the past years, would review mine if I find the courage to write one? Lolobosse (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...

Collaboration...

If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.

Where to list JavaScript articles

We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.

User scripts

The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!

If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.

How to report JavaScript articles in need of attention

If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.

Rating JavaScript articles

At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was included in the article. The question about how JSX turns into JavaScript has been addressed. The author makes a good point - we could clean up this article and create a separate one for JSX itself. It's popularity in web development make these and the related topics noteworthy.

This section needs expansion with: JSX syntax is very different from normal JavaScript, some examples should be provided, or a new article created with in-depth technical detail on how it works, how it compiles, etc.... You can help by adding to it. (May 2017)

Cypherquest (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I imagine it'd be a fairly short article, but it does exist as an entity separate to React. Basie (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what it would contain that wouldn’t be better off as a redirect here? Artw (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing, I suppose it would make the point that a (possibly non-trivial) number of Angular, Vue, and Ember devs prefer to make use of JSX, so although it became widely popular as a result of React, it isn't just associated with that library anymore. There's more that could be said about syntax, differences from HTML, examples etc. Worth thinking about. Basie (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is stated without attribution that JSX stands for "JavaScript XML". Though this is commonly stated on the intercords, it is not mentioned in the official docs nor the spec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotancohen (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about [1]. Sure, FB acquired Instagram, but can Instagram really be said to be the React developers? At least, any more than any other React-promoting company. I feel like just saying "Facebook" is correct here. Ping: Nux. Basie (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Basie: Facebook as a company is the main maintainer of React and Instagram is now just another trademark (and app) owned by Facebook. So, yeah mentioning Instagram separately just seemed redundant. That's why I removed it... But I'm not sure what are you saying? You seem to agree, but you also seem to question the edit? --Nux (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, sorry yeah I managed to look at that diff exactly backwards! NVM, nothing to see here... Basie (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Happens to the best of us :-). --Nux (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above mistake should be rectified. From O'Reilly: "React Is a Library, Not a Framework One important distinction between libraries like React and frameworks like Ember.js and AngularJS is that React is concerned only with rendering the UI and leaves many things up to each project to put together." Source: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/what-react-is/9781491996744/ch01.html

From reactjs.org: "A JavaScript library for building user interfaces". WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title should be changed because it is contradictory to the first statement in this article. It says it is a JavaScript library. So it should remove a self-contradiction. Dlee612 (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any reference calling react "bazingaJS" nor any history of previous names. Let's drop that name or find sources to support that claim. barraponto (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The request to rename this article to React (JavaScript library) has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

React (web framework) → React (JavaScript library) – React (web framework) is by definition not a web framework. "many web frameworks provide libraries for database access, templating frameworks, and session management, and they often promote code reuse.[1] Although they often target development of dynamic web sites, they are also applicable to static websites.[2]" - Web framework ?

Under Framework: Software framework, a reusable set of libraries or classes for a software system or subsystem

Web framework, for development of dynamic websites, web applications, and web services

List of JavaScript libraries would also suggest that React should be listed under "DOM (manipulation) oriented" section by the tool's use case.

There seems to be no supporting documentation to suggest that React is in fact a framework, let alone a Web framework. It could be considered a library for DOM manipulation and would fit with the "a well-defined interface by which the behavior is invoked" Library (computing) definition.

Could React be compared to professionally and academically recognized frameworks? Such as .NET Framework or Spring Framework or Next.js or Sails.js? Currently with the information we have React supplies an interface for webpage manipulation through an interface. That would suggest React being a library and align with other talks about React being a library or framework.

React on it's own can only build a single page HTML webpage; however, does not offer a framework (by wikipedia nor academic definitions) for providing development of dynamic websites, such as serving webpages or routing addresses. This would present a challenge in considering React being a framework, or a web framework; however, as mention could be considered a DOM interface (library).

It would seem harmful to continue to have React listed as a web framework, let alone a framework by wikipedia's own definitions. Does this seem to be the cases? If not, why is React a Web Framework?

Under the section Requested move 9 August 2019 the supporting consistency of Angular (web framework) has framework components such as a router, whereas react has a 3rd party library outside of react. This tends to be the case repeatedly through their comparisons. Similarly for Knockout (web framework) Jsframeworkdev (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, agree with nom – Thjarkur (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I notice this reverses the consensus at #Requested move 9 August 2019 above. I think the arguments there have been well answered here. Andrewa (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]