The consequence is that sometimes, although I might find one programming language, or framework, or tool, unpleasant to

When you’re struggling with something in your life, drill down to the root cause. Often, you’ll find a similar answer. Most of your hesitation in life comes from attaching your identity to the outcomes that happen in your life.

A lot has been discussed about JSX since its introduction, but I’ll allow myself a quick consideration of it for the sake of elucidating my point. JSX is messy, but it is also a reality. It comes from a natural evolution of front-end technologies, which have since their beginning some form of XML language to define markup. What makes it different is that JSX usually lives inside your JavaScript code.

I was always afraid to take the next step in my business and start creating programs. Why? Because I wasn’t sure if I could deliver on my promises and I didn’t want to become a sleazy course salesman. Why? Because I didn’t want to ruin my reputation. Why? Because I care about my reputation?

Making a rough comparison with spoken languages, JSX is as if the speakers of a particular language started using a whole set of words and expressions from other languages to express themselves. This frequently happens when a specific subject is innate to a given culture, for example. When people outside that culture, speakers of a different language, face that challenge of expressing ideas about that subject, they’ll often lack the vocabulary to deal with it, recurring to the language spoken by those who “gave birth” to the topic as a way to solve it. Language purists soon get angry and point out how you could say those things without the need for imported words. But people would still use those words, and some of those words will eventually be incorporated into the official language. JSX was born from the need for JavaScript speakers to express UI markup.

Good salespeople get to the root objection and offer a solution to it if they can. You can use a question to go through a similar process when unearthing your own problems. Whenever you’re struggling with something, or even when you think you want something, ask yourself why?

Replacing JSX is the Pareto principle applied to the beautification of React code. Little effort, excellent result. A move everyone should definitely make if they want prettier React code.

And this is the point where things get subjective: I find this code unpleasant. Again I’m not talking about the technical attributes of this code. When I say it is ugly, I’m trying to express a set of feelings it evokes in me, which are heavily based on my own experience of the world in general and programming specifically. It is from this perspective that I’ll move on to say that the first problem that screams to me is JSX.

The uniformity and conciseness of the code make for a substantial aesthetic improvement. And we can go further in the no-JSX road. I’m far from being the first person discussing JSX adoption. And hating it is probably as old as JSX itself. I bet the original team behind it had someone saying at least that it was unnecessary. You’ll find plenty of reading on reasons why JSX is terrible and the benefits of not using it. Gladly, you’ll also find technically sound alternatives to it. A prominent one is Hyperscript, which is recommended by the React team in their docs. It is a simple tool that helps you build hypertext using JavaScript. Its React version brings a more attractive API then `createElement` gives us. I decided to try it out together with a tiny library of helpers called `hyperscript-helpers`, and I found that those tools contribute to the code aesthetic quite nicely:

My answers to this question are more often than not something else that not React. But every once in a while, you compare every trade-off; you look at your project from different perspectives; you try to rethink the features you envisioned and the requirements you had; and still, at the end of the day, React will be your answer. With those cases in mind, I reframed the original question to: “how far can I go to make my React code more pleasing to view while still keeping it React code?”

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/v-ideos-SC-Bern-HC-Davos-v-en-gb-iey-.php

http://go.negronicocktailbar.com/jze/Video-norge-v-danmark-v-no-no-1caq-4.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/Video-SC-Bern-HC-Davos-v-en-gb-ldp30122020-.php

http://go.negronicocktailbar.com/jze/v-ideos-norge-v-danmark-v-no-no-1lme-22.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/video-lechia-tomaszow-v-azs-czestochowa-v-pl-pl-1ngw-20.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/video-lechia-tomaszow-v-azs-czestochowa-v-pl-pl-1cty-8.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/video-lechia-tomaszow-v-azs-czestochowa-v-pl-pl-1nuy-21.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/videos-dusseldorfer-v-iserlohn-roosters-v-de-de-1ozd-11.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/video-dusseldorfer-v-iserlohn-roosters-v-de-de-1tbk-16.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/Video-dusseldorfer-v-iserlohn-roosters-v-de-de-1ade-6.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/video-lettonia-v-italia-v-it-it-1gon2-10.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/Video-lettonia-v-italia-v-it-it-1xtp2-3.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/videos-lettonia-v-italia-v-it-it-1oyo2-22.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/videos-lettonia-v-italia-v-it-it-1ikb2-10.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/v-ideos-Latvia-Italy-v-en-gb-1koe-.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/video-Latvia-Italy-v-en-gb-1jxw30122020-1.php

http://news7.totssants.com/izt/Video-Latvia-Italy-v-en-gb-1cyr-24.php

mber of different garbage collection algorithms over the years, including serial, parallel, concurrent mark/sweep, G1 and the new ZGC garbage collector. Modern garbage collectors aim to minimize the duration of garbage collection “stop the world” pauses.

While reflecting on this topic one day, a question arose: Can I write React code that is aesthetically delightful while still keeping my productivity high? I know there are tremendously valuable answers to this question out there in the way of other programming languages and frameworks. All of those will have varying degrees of the same trade-offs, like how hard it is to learn, how much can I still benefit from the React ecosystem, how is the tooling around it, and so on. And all those trade-offs need to be measured differently depending on the project’s objective.

‘I don’t have enough money,’ ‘I don’t have time to use this’, ‘now’s not a good time’, etc. But usually, the truth lies behind the initial objection. Either they don’t trust you, they don’t trust the product, or they do trust the product but don’t trust themselves to follow through with using it.

A failure in business makes me feel like a failure as a person. I created a solution by consciously separating my identity from my work, offering a generous no-hassle refund policy, and creating the best programs possible.

To start answering the question, I created a Create React App project with a simple React code as a reference. I wanted it to have at least a bit of real-lifeless but still be simple enough, so it wouldn’t get in the way of testing different things. I chose the official React tutorial code, which you can find here: Tic Tac Toe.

Following the language speakers’ analogy, a few souls use the language for aesthetic purposes and a means of self-expression. It is generally the case for poets and literary writers. How do they look at foreign language words? Well, they’ll undoubtedly see them differently. Their perspective is analogous to my view here, as it looks at language from its power to express ideas while also considering it aesthetically. From this perspective, the use of JSX is unnecessary: it adds noise and does not contribute to the expression of the ideas it expresses.