@BrendanEich @AdamRackis @ryanflorence @Rich_Harris Mysticism is furthered by considering it anything other than superficial syntax.
-
-
Replying to @jordwalke @BrendanEich and
Nah, the mysticism is precisely treating it as simple sugar, when in practice much of the work of React is squinting at it differently.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats @BrendanEich and
Maybe there's some plans or goals I'm not privy to.
Why am I always the last to be invited into the conspiracy?pic.twitter.com/jZu4JLLZpQ
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @jordwalke @wycats and
This will forever be how I think about, and encourage use of JSX. Anything else including framework compilers is wildly unappealing to me.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @jordwalke @wycats and
I'm struggling to see yehuda's point myself. What mysticism?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @threepointone @jordwalke and
I like JSX, truly (I implemented E4X back in the day & tamed crazy parts of its spec). Mysticism for me comes from immutability appearances+
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @threepointone and
which can deceive. Then
@sebmarkbage trolls me for not making JS be Haskell (premodern version) in 1995! So yes, JSX is just syntax: for JS!3 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @threepointone and
But the story of react is heavily focused on immutability, so the look is really deceiving.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @BrendanEich @wycats and
I think the argument might be misstated. It is everything except the JSX part that avoids mysticism. Scopes, modules, helper functions etc.
1 reply 3 retweets 3 likes
Right, but then people have to write in an immutable style for good behavior (and jsx looks really declarative) but get messed up w/ JS
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.