[hashrate]

> Angular / VueJS / Ember: when you need a webapp done quick and reliable, > in exchange allowing a big black-box instead of an architecture.

Here we have the typical "coder" mindset, It's very clear reading these line that the developer has never experienced with those frameworks as both Angular and Vue has very strong and well designed architecture which are obviously open source.

Unfortunately it's very rare these days to find developers that can argue passed beyond "Google Trends Charts" and "Github Stars" about what makes a good or bad framework and why X is better than Y or why X architecture is more efficient than Y.

> React: when you need total control over the architecture

Could the author be more specific here ? I don't remember "Ruby on Rails" to give much freedom in terms of architecture yet it empowers thousands of large traffic web apps without any problems.

It sounded as very common beginner beliefs which is "It's not possible to do this with [Angular/Vue]".

Hence the majority of the article isn't really specific to JS.

[britch]

I took the more control to mean React gives you more choice over what libraries you want to include in your architecture, whereas Angular/VueJs. are more opinionated.

HTTP call libraries are a good example. Angular comes with HttpClient in the box, and while it might be possible to use something else, Angular is really going to prefer if you makre your HTTP calls using HttpClient.

As I understand it, React does not have a parallel. React shrugs its shoulders and says "use what you want," whether it's just using fetch or some other JS library.

Total control is maybe an extreme way to put it, but React certainly more "fill in the blank" than the other frameworks.

[TheCoelacanth]

It's supposed to be a bad thing that React doesn't add yet another way of making HTTP calls? There is already a standard way of doing that (fetch). Why should a web framework add another one?