I am actually kind of starting to see reacts usefulness and opportunities, but just can't let go the thought that many are blocking javascript, so those would be barred from the resulting site, doesn't that bother anybody else? or is that just generally ignored?

It depends on the project itself. For example, if it's a web application users will be forced to disable no Javascript, else if it's a website they might just skip it (depending on the content).

@mohammed exactly, it just feels like one -would- have to include a full fallback, which is a huge pain in the ass with dynamic components.

@bitwise and @alexdelarge weren't you both guys highly active in angular and or react?

For most web app I think you can just assume js is enabled. If you want to show read-only-like content to public users you can use server side rendering. Idk the react lib but in angular it is called angular universal.

@spacem ah I forgot about SSR, thanks!

Well, I also can't expect my users to have a current browser version. Do I develop my site to look nice in Netscape because of this? No.

If users decide to artificially limit their browser and hence their internet experience, I will not bother catering to them. Just turn on js or go off my site.

Apart from that, how many normal users have js turned off? If any, probably by accident and they are used for the internet to look like shit and not working properly.

I'm with @TobyAsE
It's not 2010, where people used to have JS turned off. Most people will have it on and you can just include a nosript tag telling them...

@spacem in react you can use next and in Vuejs nuxt

@teganburns I know folks who do. The first kind are very privacy minded people. The second ones are people without any clue, that heard you can get viruses by JS or websites will abuse your computer to mine crypto currencies...

@teganburns

The main reason I mentioned is what @Wack said - I would be also using a javascript blocker (though I wouldnt call myself "clueless") if a good noscript existed for chrome (because it has a trusted whitelist for example, which the chrome alt. doesnt have), but the chrome team never actually went through to hold their promise for the noscript developer integration.

@Tobyase

I am pretty confident in dropping old browsers by now, as many companies did actually migrate and understood the reason, but with the recent outbreak of javascript exploits, cryptominers etc. many people that use firefox seem to also put noscript into their basic addons, with which they would probably just drop the site if it doesnt work.

But having SSR prerender atleast the main parts, would both solve SEO issues that come with full js websites and give the user atleast not an entirely empty website if js is blocked (see the angular page - block JS and then all you get is a white page).

So I guess a good combination of SSR and noscript information like you basically have to handle it already if you use js, would entirely solve it.

Of course I would still love if the two tagged above would give their opinion on it or stack they use, as they actually actively deploy it as their job iirc.

@JoshBent you tagged 3 people here. I was raised in 2007 web dev environement, where not only "IE6" was a thing, but also "IE 5.5 for Mac". The concept of div was brand new and frames where still a thing.
So I kind of tend to still write application working without js (where possible) dripdown menu: css, forms http request plus js (if enabled) to turn them in ajax requests. Template: twig, and then sent to the frontend.
I absolutely see, what angular, vue or react bring to the table, but man I'm .ore an backe d guy (though call myself fullstack, but if given the choice backend it is).

However since it's 2017, nowadays I'd go for a JS frontemd but keeping basic functionality either HTML (templates are a thing now...) Or SSR (I don't like node for backend... But that's a personal taste) furthermore I try to outsource as much work as possible to CSS. With animations and shit it does an excelent job!

Edit: basicfunctionallity: everything that's SEO or content relevant.

@Wack not sure what you meant by the 3 tags, but the tags weren't in any order anymore, because I had to rewrite it all, after losing the original message.

I know that the move from tables to divs took everybody a while and I have suffered myself through a lot of backwards compatibility stitching, but now that I recently either was able to drop some clients, the contract ran out or other reasons - I am finally able to look into more "on the edge solutions" again and the "quick" looks at react I did in the past - simply didn't give it justice, e.g I for some reason memorized that in react you build the html yourself with some braces abomination.

>>"furthermore I try to outsource as much work as possible to CSS"

yeah, e.g. the usual checkbox hack to make dropdown menus work

>>"SSR (I don't like node for backend... But that's a personal taste)"

if one wants to use any of the frontend js frameworks, then you have to go with nodejs or am I missing something?

(cont.)

@Wack >>"I absolutely see, what angular, vue or react bring to the table"

Me too, that's exactly why I am now again trying to look up all the things that have evolved since last time I checked them and maybe even be able to learn them further by just adding them to new projects, like I did with laravel too.

I don't think I'll be able to just fully change from laravel to react, but I am sure I can make use of it in the more dynamic webpages, which actually excites me most, as looking at the basics of react, something like a train schedule search, would be done in no time, compared to setting the same up in a more "static" way like php, ajax, ..

Why would you need node for that? You "just" need an endpoint, so laravel is perfectly fine. A quick google showed a few tuts (https://code.tutsplus.com/tutorials... no idea if it's any good). However probably you'd need node to do SSR. Then again, if you use webpack, you anyway have node.

So I guess I have to rephrase, I love node on the backend to run webpack. I just don't like my business logic, db transactions and stuff in it.

@Wack ah thanks, highly appreciate it, I did quick google searches and come across the idea of basically using laravel as just the API, but this one in specific didn't come up and summarized it all pretty well