←back to thread

Ask HN: How does one build large front end apps without a framework like React?

94 points thepianodan | 1 comments | 17 Oct 25 10:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.199s | source

I had a mind-blown-moment when I learnt that Obsidian was built without any frontend JS framework. ( https://forum.obsidian.md/t/what-framework-did-the-developer-use-to-create-obsidian-desktop-application/30724/11 )

The benefits, I can see.

    JS frameworks move really quickly, and when we're working on a large, long-term project, it sucks when big breaking changes are introduced after only a couple of years. Sticking to slow-moving web standards (which are quite mature by now) increases the longevity of a project.

    And the stability also means that more time is spent on delivering features, rather than on fixing compatibility issues.

    There is also the benefit of independence. The project's success is not tied to the framework's success. And it also makes the project more secure, from supply chain attacks and such.

    Because there is no "abstraction layer" of a framework, you also have greater control over your project, and can make performance optimizations at a lower level.

    I feel not using a framework can even make us a better developer. Because we know more of what's going on.
There are benefits to using frameworks too, I'm not here to challenge that.

But this alternative of using none... it seems rarely talked about. I want to learn more about building large (preferably web-based) software projects with few dependencies.

Do you have any suggestions on how to learn more about it? Are there any open source projects you know which are built this way? It needs to be large, complex, app-like, and browser based. I'm more interested in the frontend side.

Thank you!

Show context
strogonoff ◴[17 Oct 25 11:41 UTC] No.45615558[source]▶
It’s always mildly amusing how many engineers believe that React is a framework. I personally attribute it to lack of experience—once you’ve used enough proper frameworks, you’d laugh at that comparison. The fact that React is and always has been literally defined as a library right on its website doesn’t seem to stop them.

Incidentally, many of the issues people have with React are attributable to this mistake: knowing what a framework is supposed to be, one might expect React to take care of everything, and when it turns out you’re on your own and using React in a complex project means (whether consciously or not) coming up with a homegrown React-based framework of your own, or using a collection of disparate extras that fill in the blanks (like CRA), by then it’s already a hairy mess of a codebase in a desperate need of refactoring.

React lacks most of framework traits. The library does reactive rendering and contains a somewhat restricted set of low-level primitives around it. Even its DOM integration is handled by a separate, optional library (ReactDOM).

Someone could complain it feels like with Vercel the direction for React is to become closer to a framework (now with RSC and JSX runtime being part of React), but still it is nowhere near a state where the phrase “a framework like React” rings true—and, in fact, Vercel’s interests are aligned with keeping React more of a library than a framework so that more people use Next and are upsold Vercel’s hosting, and Next is in fact a framework in the full sense of the word, comparable to Django or Rails.

Similarly, Vue, Angular, Marko, Astro, Qwik, etc. are frameworks. They provide you with project structure, scaffolding, and a lot of batteries. The fact that many of them are, in fact, using React under the hood speaks volumes.

replies(2): >>45616424 #>>45617749 #
thomasikzelf ◴[17 Oct 25 13:16 UTC] No.45616424[source]▶
If you go to the React website you need to click "Learn React". A library often does not make you learn new concepts. It is just functions with input and output.

On the first page "Quickstart" all code blocks contain code that contain JSX and call you. They do not even show the part where you need to call render. Copying this code into your codebase will not do anything.

On that same page they also introduce state management with hooks.

On the installation page npm installing react is not mentioned. They suggest using create react app.

Sure you can theoratically use react as a library but I've never seen it and from the website it seems like usage as a library is not the inteded way to use react.

The first sentence "The library for web and native user interfaces" is the only thing pointing to react being able to be used as a library. The rest of it looks like a framework to me.

replies(1): >>45624775 #
1. strogonoff ◴[18 Oct 25 03:58 UTC] No.45624775[source]▶
> If you go to the React website you need to click "Learn React".

The second library I remembered (GSAP) writes exactly that on their site.

> A library often does not make you learn new concepts

New concepts are absolutely a thing, take any library that implements any spec and in order to use that library you have to learn subject domain of the spec.

Another example is D3 (the first library I thought of), which does not exactly has “Learn D3” (quite an unorthodox way of assessing whether something is a framework anyway) but which does require you learn a bunch of concepts to use it in an educated way. Just like people do with React, you can obviously not learn these concepts and wing it, and then reap the consequences of resulting awkward code.

> Sure you can theoratically use react as a library but I've never seen it

It is not “used as a library”. It is a library. Being mistaken for a framework is why projects often get burned. People who are aware that it is a library, and use it as such, tend to not to get burned, because then you know you have to either have a simple project, or implement all the framework-y elements that it misses, usually part by strategically picking a set of other libraries to fill in the blanks and part DIY.

Show me a complex project that is not using a framework and I will show you a home-made framework.