> I 100% agree. I've ran into the same issues, and I would never use Next.js for anything, and I will encourage every team at work to use something else.
Things will get far worse before they get better. Right now, online courses such as the ones in PluralSight are pushing Next.js on virtually all courses related to React. I have no idea what ill-advised train of thought resulted in this sad state of affairs but here we are.
The train of thought is “what is everyone using? I’ll use that too”
This coupled with the fact that "web development" now means anything going from a content rich website like a blog, towards some e-shop, all the way to complex applications like ux design, video editing, etc.
It's pretty absurd to have such a broad range of web solutions, and think the same solution can cover everything.
Why? Microsoft's GUI framework as well as Apple's covered plenty of use cases before the rise of the web browser.
Then why did HTML became so popular if win32 or MFC were so great?
> Then why did HTML became so popular if win32 or MFC were so great?
One of the factors is that web dev pushes for a complete separation of concerns, and thus allows frontend developers to specialize in front end development. Therefore it becomes far easier to hire someone to do frontend work with a webdev background than a win32/MFC background.
Number of applicants is also a big factor. There is far more demand for webdev than pure GUI programming. You can only hire people who show up, and if no one shows up then you need to scramble.
Frontend development is also by far the most expensive part of a project. In projects which use low-level native frameworks you are forced to hire a team for each target platform. Adopting technologies that implement GUIs with webpages running in a WebView allow projects to halve the cost. This is also why technologies like React Native shine.
Also, apps like Visual Studio Code prove that webview-based apps can be both nice to look at and be performant.
It's not capabilities. It's mainly the economics.
In the win32/MFC days, there was no "front-end developer". There was only HTML and content creators writing it.
Then there came small web applications, and still no "front-end developers", since functionality could only work on the server.
It's only when AJAX was introduced in the mid 2000's that you could start to talk about "front-end developers".
By that time, win32 and MFC was old. We had Java, C# with .net framework, etc.
Because it solved different problems. CSS is terrible, but deployment simplicity and distribution channel were more powerful than how shitty HTML is for making GUIs. The fact that MFC was owned by Microsoft didn't help either.
Why would you make GUI's with HTML? Its main use was for content, not applications. Hyper Text Markup Language.
So you agree both solve different problems. Well, those are 2 use cases of front-end right now.
> The train of thought is “what is everyone using? I’ll use that too”
I'm not so sure about that. We're seeing Next.js being pushed as the successor of create-react-app even in react.dev[1], which as a premise is kind of stupid. There is something wrong definitely going on.
[1] https://react.dev/learn/creating-a-react-app
It was interesting handling frontend interviews recently.
We do a 30-min tops exercise where you create a React project to show how to use useState and useEffect, etc. I help with whatever command they want to use and allow Google/ChatGPT.
More than half of the candidates had no idea how to use React without Next.js, and some argued it was impossible, even after I told them the opposite.
This surprises me a lot. I spin up new react apps with vite often to replicate issues with 3rd party libs we use. Like how do they not know you can just spin something up over on CodePen or CodeSandbox and there's not a hint of a server side paradigm required? (sure, vite has a little server but you don't really need to know anything about it)
Some devs have worked exclusively in feature mills where expectations are rock bottom and some senior setups the project for them. When recruiters don't filter them, a basic React test has to.
What are you really testing for? That sounds like a bad interview.
Basic react experience presumably. As a first approximation, it seems like every possible interview sounds like a bad interview to someone. What has worked well for you?
Seems more like a test on random React minutiae. Like, let's take some framework, take away some random piece. How well do you know the area around that random piece we just removed? Frameworks are large and gnarly (or there isn't enough to them). Expecting a candidate to be lucky and know random implementation details in the area that happened to be picked doesn't seem like you'd select for anything other than luck.
For me, lately, the interview question is "here's code that ChatGPT generated for (previous interview question as related to the role we're hiring for that we could do)", what's wrong with it? What do now? (ChatGPT may or may not have actually generated the code in question.)
It's not React "minutiae". It's incredibly basic concepts, that if you don't know, you cannot in good faith say you know react.
It's like not knowing how to write a for loop or how to access an object's property in JavaScript.
I remember one of the first technical interviews I conducted about 15 years ago, I asked the candidate the difference between == and ===. She had the same answer as gp, claiming the doesn't "memorize minutiae like that."
> Seems more like a test on random React minutiae.
It is more like test on whether or not you can figure out random React minutiae (with Google/ChatGPT, if needed) when presented with a need. Which isn't a bad approximation for how well you will do at finding any random minutiae as needs present themselves. React-based development doesn't require much original thought — the vast majority of the job really is just figuring out the minutiae of your dependencies to fit your circumstantial need.
For fun, I asked ChatGPT for an answer and it gave a perfectly good one back without hesitation. Even if you had no idea what React was beyond knowing it is a library for developing web components, you should still be able to answer that particular question with ease.
I was assuming that particular interview was not open ChatGPT. If all you want to test for is can you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth, type that into ChatGPT, and then read it to me, yeah, it seems fine.
Why would one random part of the interview disallow ChatGPT when it is otherwise accepted for answering other random React minutiae?
Because humans have to interact with other humans in conversations, and if you can't read social cues as to when something is and isn't acceptable, you're boned. I have trouble with that, so it's not surprising to me when others do as well.
When you're in a work meeting, do you just put ChatGPT up on one laptop and Claude on another and just sit back for 30 minutes to an hour?
It was deemed acceptable to use ChatGPT to discover the minutiae of useState and useEffect. What is special about createRoot that makes it off limits?
The most basic React functionality isn't "React minutiae".
You have to remember, Next is the only framework that can support some of the features in the latest version of React.
To many people, it's just basic logic: "everyone must want the latest React features, and the only way to get those is with Next, so everyone must want Next".
Vite is coming along with rsc at least. https://github.com/vitejs/vite-plugin-react/tree/main/packag...
> You have to remember, Next is the only framework that can support some of the features in the latest version of React.
That is extremely fishy, isn't it?
Not necessarily since they have to do with the inherently complex niche features like unified server/client rendering (e.g. RSC, streaming SSR with selective hydration, server actions).
Next.js is essentially the reference and test bed impl.
Where people go wrong is thinking they need to default to the inherently complex niche feature of client hydration which is a niche optimization enabled by a quirk of web tech.
> Not necessarily since they have to do with the inherently complex niche features like unified server/client rendering (...)
My point is that it's fishy how they push features that just so happen to be the value proposition of the only corporation that just so happens to be able to implement them.
If everyone made decisions for themselves instead of following everyone else we’d be so much better off, in all areas.
This is a little disingenuous because unfortunately you can't make decisions on technical merits alone. It takes a lot of resources to keep these projects thriving and up to date. You almost have to go with options where these resources have been deployed, even if they are terrible sometimes.
This is only partially true. For example, with React Native even the core team now tells you to "just use Expo", as if relegating all responsibility to a project maintained by a for-profit that thinks 2 weeks is enough time to beta test a Major release.
It's also dismissive of market forces, i.e. developers have to pay bills and therefore are easier to hire if they know the skillset that is in wide use.
I've never worked or interviewed a single senior that wanted to use Next.