Hacker News Reader

> Pushing for web standard technologies is inherently unbiased because that's just betting on the platform.

There's a ton of politics around web standards, and you can bet if Google manages to push through Web Environment Integrity, I will not consider people suggesting to use it "unbiased because it's a standard"

That's a fair point. I didn't consider that

> I don't feel it's fair to brand "web components" as a technology that was in direct competition with React. I think the nuance matters.

Nuance doesn't matter to most proponents of web components. When they were introduced, for the first few years they were explicitly marketed as platform-native solution that makes frameworks obsolete.

Now the rhetoric seems more nuanced, but it's the same. It's only been upgraded to "build with lit".

> IMO it'd only be a bias take if web components were branded as having no issues whatsoever, or that they are the most optimal solution for everything

Mostly they are billed like that. And any voices criticizing them are either ignored or blocked.

I'd take that point further and state that React is in no competition with anything.

React was invented because Facebook had very interactive/stateful UI as well as large teams of developers working on the same codebase. The then conventional jQuery soup approach didn't cut it.

Should the web platform come up with a standards-based approach to solve the same problem, then this is not "competition", it is a blessing. It's not like React earns Facebook any revenue. Ideally, it wouldn't be needed or exist at all.

React has more implementation of its components model (preact, react, solidjs, inferno,…) than web components (chrome, ff partially and safari partially), is more used and is more indépendant from the current web monopoly. Anything w3c is now a standard to keep dominance.