In reply to @ericclemmons: https://twitter.com/ericclemmons/status/681654609622908928.
Article context: https://medium.com/@ericclemmons/javascript-fatigue-48d4011b6fc4#.rzwz221k3

---

Eric,

Thanks for hitting me up with clarification.

My message was not intended as an attack on you or your post. Articles titled like yours have a tendency to take a life of their own. The bulk of my reaction was to the title itself and the resulting conversation.

I agree with you that there is a lot of pain building React apps today; I disagree that this is representative of building JavaScript apps today. I agree that React components demonstrate a lot of exploration; I disagree that this is a problem that needs to be solved right now—"let a thousand flowers bloom." I agree that application-level abstractions could help newcomers to a project; I disagree that this will be just one framework that serves all React apps.

I don't agree that a pluggable system will provide a significant reduction in "fatigue" and that we're more likely to see a variety of opinionated, single-purpose solutions spring up to support the wide array of applications that React can be used for. I also disagree that any significant sampling of React apps would reveal a 90% similarity of anything.

JavaScript is very close to the user and all close-to-the-user-abstractions hard-won. I don't think we're in a place to assume that arbitrary high-level abstractions would provide meaningful "fatigue insulation" from the exploration happening in low-level components. I think the distance would only continue to grow until apps built this way would require a major re-write.

I want nicer things as much as anyone. But I think we're still identifying that 90% and we won't solve the fatigue problem until we've found it.

chan