To compare plain JS and React/stuff with C and assembly, that is a bit much. The comparison of things from so fundamentally different ecosystems is not going to yield a convincing argument.
"Smart" people are actually dump, if they use an overblown framework for something as simple as a switch on a website and thereby destroy normal browser functionality, because most of them do not actually know how to use their hammer.
So once one has carefully considered not using a full blown megabytes sized framework and simply writing a few lines of JS instead, coupled with standard conform CSS and has actually thought about what parts of a website really need to be interactive, then one can still decide point-wise / component-wise, where to use a framework.
The problem in the JS community is a huge load of people, who present their specific solution as a general solution and others who trust them and add dependencies to their project. Putting something like left pad as a package shows what I am talking about. There is no need to have such a simple thing be a package and no harm in writing a single simple function, when one needs it. But in JS ecosystem there are also loads of devs who just started out developing and they are happy to choose dependency after dependency, because it means they can have it now, without having to code it up themselves, even if it should be a simple exercise. That does not lead to being very smart. Smart is, when I can avoid dependencies, due to intelligently coding simple things myself in generally reusable ways, so that it does not impact future development. But with most of the JS ecosystem mentality, people never get there.
> if they use an overblown framework for something as simple as a switch on a website and thereby destroy normal browser functionality
Likely not what you meant, but FYI there is no native "switch" control in HTML - you do need to use a CSS or JS framework if you want something like iOS switch control. QED
I don't need a JS framework for a thing, that has 2 states, which can be realized using 2 CSS classes and toggling between them. That's maybe a 3 liner, if at all.
I am not using iOS and have no interest in it, so I have no idea what is so special about an _iOS_ switch control. Since I don't know what is that is, I also cannot really want to have it.
Fairly sure that I could probably find some easy to follow tutorial on how to make something graphically resemble a switch, if a checkbox is not sufficient for whatever reason, if I look for it ... Oh I just found a website which lists 20 of them in pure CSS on the first search query I entered: "plain css js make switch"
"Smart" people are actually dump, if they use an overblown framework for something as simple as a switch on a website and thereby destroy normal browser functionality, because most of them do not actually know how to use their hammer.
So once one has carefully considered not using a full blown megabytes sized framework and simply writing a few lines of JS instead, coupled with standard conform CSS and has actually thought about what parts of a website really need to be interactive, then one can still decide point-wise / component-wise, where to use a framework.
The problem in the JS community is a huge load of people, who present their specific solution as a general solution and others who trust them and add dependencies to their project. Putting something like left pad as a package shows what I am talking about. There is no need to have such a simple thing be a package and no harm in writing a single simple function, when one needs it. But in JS ecosystem there are also loads of devs who just started out developing and they are happy to choose dependency after dependency, because it means they can have it now, without having to code it up themselves, even if it should be a simple exercise. That does not lead to being very smart. Smart is, when I can avoid dependencies, due to intelligently coding simple things myself in generally reusable ways, so that it does not impact future development. But with most of the JS ecosystem mentality, people never get there.