Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • Thank you for these excellent points. We are generally following the patterns provided by the library. The examples I've given (found in code reviews) deviate. I've been worried that the customer might reject and require us to redo a part of our delivery because it didn't "look and feel like React". Now I know why they would do that. Commented Jul 7, 2015 at 20:36
  • 2
    +1 "rather than teaching new patterns" - procedural training is a very large time sink with new hires. Always strive to minimize the time cost by piggybacking well known patterns Commented Jul 8, 2015 at 7:19
  • 1
    @Alexus: Regarding backwards compatibility, React is still not at version 1.0. The current version, 0.13, did break compatibility in some pretty drastic ways, though whether these failures will happen depends on what mechanism is used to call React components. Having very consistent rules for how to call React may not prevent React upgrades from breaking code, but fixing consistent code is easier, faster, and more reliable. Your concerns about backward compatibility issues are definitely justified in the case of React. E.g., see my comment on stackoverflow.com/a/20913637/18192 Commented Jul 8, 2015 at 14:12