
React v15.6.0 Released - petercooper
https://facebook.github.io/react/blog/2017/06/13/react-v15.6.0.html
======
linkmotif
What is remarkable is the onChange input event after all these releases is
still being improved. This is a testament to how difficult it is to normalize
browser differences and not some failing on the part of the React team and
contributors. If only people knew how difficult this one little element can
be. It's a shame it's so complicated.

------
grizzles
Just curious, what do react folks think about this blog
post:[http://joonhachu.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/dont-use-flux-or-
re...](http://joonhachu.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/dont-use-flux-or-redux-for-
react.html)

To me, the application wide bus paradigm is elegant, and find it surprising
that redux is currently more fashionable than this approach.

Thoughts?

~~~
hliyan
Having used both Flux and Redux for fairly large projects for the past two
years, I have finally come to the conclusion that I really don't need either.
I tried to summarize my alternative here, although I'm sure many will
disagree:

[http://zen.lk/2017/05/08/you-might-not-need-
redux/](http://zen.lk/2017/05/08/you-might-not-need-redux/)

~~~
foodie_
I hate to pile on, but we introduced react and redux at my startup and it (the
project, not the company) largely failed due to the increased complexity of
redux itself, and a coding style of hyper abstraction.

Maybe it works on large teams and code bases, but it is unnecessary on smaller
teams where sane code practices are enough.

~~~
acemarke
Can you give some details on what issues you ran into, and what "hyper
abstraction" meant?

------
beefsack
This is a very minor release, mainly just covering some bug fixes and
deprecation warnings. It's not terribly noteworthy.

~~~
Strom
Some of those IE11 input bugs have been annoying me for a long time. Glad to
see them fixed.

------
ljoshua
Downgrading the deprecation warnings to console.warn instead of console.error
will be nice until all the third-party libraries catch up with the changes in
v15.5. It's the small things.

~~~
BigJono
Using console.error for warnings was silly in the first place. The solution to
people ignoring warnings is to change that mindset, not to reduce the
granularity of information and make everything red. I see the same thing with
ESLint a lot.

~~~
jankassens
For a long time, console.error had a stack trace in the Chrome devtools while
console.warn didn't. I believe this was the main motivation to use
console.error.

~~~
BigJono
Ahhh, that makes a lot more sense!

------
usuallybaffled
Do they follow semantic versioning? If so, does that mean there have been 15
releases with major breaking changes?

~~~
vizzier
They switched from 0.14 to 15.0 to reflect react being production ready. See
here: [https://facebook.github.io/react/blog/2016/02/19/new-
version...](https://facebook.github.io/react/blog/2016/02/19/new-versioning-
scheme.html)

------
pcmaffey
I noticed Fiber is now passing all it's tests. Anyone have an idea when
release is planned?

~~~
felipeko
According to a member of the dev team: 'We are aiming for sometime in the
second half of the year. There's still a few details to work out beyond just
feature parity with 15. '

[https://www.reddit.com/r/reactjs/comments/6g3e98/react_fiber...](https://www.reddit.com/r/reactjs/comments/6g3e98/react_fiber_100_of_unit_test_passing_thanks_react/dinq9k3/)

------
chacham15
I noticed that fibers tests'[1] are at 100% passing, so I got excited for a
second. Looks like this is in preparation of that.

[1] [http://isfiberreadyyet.com/](http://isfiberreadyyet.com/)

------
cutler
If you want real state management with immutable data just use Clojurescript
and Reagent. Leiningen will also free you from JS tooling hell.

------
minmaxmux
Minus minus, is that automatic if you dare to criticise facebook ? Do I loose
my facebook and instagram now also ?

------
amelius
Please consider to stop using/contributing to software of companies, if you
don't agree with the way they conduct business or treat their users.

There are various open-source alternatives to React, which are not encumbered
with underlying malpractices such as large-scale user-tracking, data silo
lock-in, selling of data to advertisers.

~~~
coldtea
> _which are not encumbered with underlying malpractices such as large-scale
> user-tracking, data silo lock-in, selling of data to advertisers._

React is not encumbered by "large-scale user-tracking, data silo lock-in,
selling of data to advertisers". Nor it is of any much benefit to Facebook
whether devs adopt React or not. In the grand scheme of things, they could not
care less.

Perhaps you meant for people to stop using Facebook instead?

~~~
amelius
> React is not encumbered by

Perhaps I should have chosen the words "funded by" instead. It shouldn't make
a big difference to a reader willing to understand the true meaning of this
appeal.

> Nor it is of any much benefit to Facebook whether devs adopt React or not.
> In the grand scheme of things, they could not care less.

Open-source is not a uni-directional thing. Otherwise, why would companies
like Facebook use it in the first place? There are numerous reasons why large
companies are leveraging open source. See [1] for a list. Using React equals
supporting Facebook.

> Perhaps you meant for people to stop using Facebook instead?

That's like asking people to stop using telephone. Facebook has them locked
in. There are alternatives to React, but there are no alternatives to Facebook
(for most people).

[1] [https://www.quora.com/Why-do-huge-profit-oriented-
software-c...](https://www.quora.com/Why-do-huge-profit-oriented-software-
companies-contribute-to-open-source-software-when-it-is-akin-to-doing-charity-
work-which-runs-against-their-commercial-instinct)

~~~
coldtea
> _Perhaps I should have chosen the words "funded by" instead. It shouldn't
> make a big difference to a reader willing to understand the true meaning of
> this appeal._

How about you thinking this through though?

We shouldn't e.g. use Firefox because it's largely funded by Google's search
money?? We shouldn't use Node because Blink is funded by Google again? And
what if Facebook decides to fund some open source platform? Will that be
tainted too, and we should avoid it as well?

Or maybe it's only when a company has created/controls the project? Then we
shouldn't use Golang because Google? We shouldn't use LLVM because is funded
by Apple? We shouldn't use Java because it's funded by Oracle?

> _Using React equals supporting Facebook._

Barely, and it gives way more value to the community than it does to Facebook.
Facebook could close down its React involvement right now, and it would hardly
affect its market cap or its ability to find developers to work there.

> _That 's like asking people to stop using telephone. Facebook has them
> locked in. There are alternatives to React, but there are no alternatives to
> Facebook (for most people)._

There are 100s of alternatives, including good old email, myriad IM and chat
and video apps, sms messages, Slack, and so on, one button personal blogs, and
so on, including other social web and mobile apps and platforms.

Merely 25 years ago we had almost none of those options and NO Facebook and we
got on just fine. Now we have ALL of those options, and for some reason we
just can't do without Facebook?

Besides, if there's really no alternative to people using Facebook that paints
your proposal in an even more useless light: hey people, you can't stop using
the $50 billion behemoth's crap, but you can hurt it with less than a pin-
prick by not using some GOOD stuff it produces for developers. That's not
"making a difference" that's nonsensical.

~~~
amelius
> We shouldn't e.g. use Firefox because it's largely funded by Google's search
> money?

You are right but you are being pedantic here. This is all about political
agendas and supporting the good ones versus not supporting the bad ones.
Please stick to the essence of the discussion.

> Facebook could close down its React involvement right now, and it would
> hardly affect its market cap or its ability to find developers to work
> there.

Please list me the reasons why you think Facebook is using open source then?
And don't be selective.

> There are 100s of alternatives, including good old email, (...)

Yes, there are alternatives but they are not accessible because users have
been locked into the network of Facebook. That was the point.

~~~
coldtea
> _Please list me the reasons why you think Facebook is using open source
> then? And don 't be selective._

Very simply: because it gives them some developer good will and cheap PR for
next to nothing. They want React for their internal use anyway, and it's just
a minimal amount of time to have their devs maintain a project page and accept
public comments and changesets.

It makes their devs happier too, to think that they don't just work for FB,
but also give something back to the community.

But for FB, the corporation, and for their scale and their core business,
React and all the value their open source efforts put together bring in, is
insignificant -- statistical noise.

~~~
amelius
I think you are greatly underestimating the value of developer good will.

> it's just a minimal amount of time to have their devs maintain a project
> page and accept public comments and changesets.

It's really a lot of work to maintain a project of this size, and all of its
issues and documentation. I'm guessing it easily doubles the total amount of
work.

> It makes their devs happier too, to think that they don't just work for FB,
> but also give something back to the community.

I would go further and say that these devs would be unhappy and question the
meaning of their work without such projects.

> But for FB (...) React (...) is insignificant

Perhaps, perhaps not. But I am personally not supporting this any further, and
doing my best not to be hypocritical by on the one hand criticizing Facebook
and how they abuse their users in every conceivable way, and on the other hand
applauding their open source efforts.

~~~
coldtea
> _I think you are greatly underestimating the value of developer good will._

And I think that you greatly overestimating it.

Especially for a company like Facebook, whose business doesn't depend on
developers anyway (even their "FB apps" platform is not such a big thing
compared to FB core).

> _It 's really a lot of work to maintain a project of this size, and all of
> its issues and documentation. I'm guessing it easily doubles the total
> amount of work._

For a tiny team of a few devs, compared to the 1000s FB has on its payroll.
Even if they spend like $1 million per year for just the "public open source"
part of it, it's still peanuts.

> _But I am personally not supporting this any further, and doing my best not
> to be hypocritical by on the one hand criticizing Facebook and how they
> abuse their users in every conceivable way, and on the other hand applauding
> their open source efforts._

Is that hypocritical though? Sounds more like calling something bad bad, and
something good good, even if it comes from the same entity.

Which is something we should strive for maybe?

~~~
amelius
> Is that hypocritical though? Sounds more like calling something bad bad, and
> something good good, even if it comes from the same entity. Which is
> something we should strive for maybe?

I can answer that with simply: _not_ if the good is reinforcing the bad.

Because then it is hypocritical by definition.

