It is after all a full template. Looking over the deps, including reactstrap is a bit extra baggage, but overall it's everything that you'd ultimately need to make an application in the ecosystem to do what it's offering, seems robust.

oh it definitely is a rewrite

Yeah curious why more people didn't notice that strange phrasing. Not sure what the point of it was. Did they make more mistakes and therefore fix more of them?

unfortunately still a bit resource intensive, agreed that I like the extension if I ignored that bit

They actually seemed to have touched on something like that briefly, saying they'd come back to it in their android segment. Still not sure if it's sincere but if it is, it's a good set of steps.

This is such a poorly done react app, you can not take this as the current state of react. If you've never seen a mature react app, and have at best checked out a few blogs that try to compare it to other frameworks, then you have not been exposed to nearly enough to make a real decision and are throwing around empty opinions.

I'll admit mostly ignorance since I've only done a Udemy react course and read some blogs. However, I've never seen it done any other way. Isn't JSX an integral part of React?

I wrote an extended answer to this on Reddit a few weeks ago [0]. I'll paste it here for ease of reading:

JSX is not required. Literally, all you need is to include script tags for `react.js` and `react-dom.js`, and then you write "raw" `React.createElement()` calls.

However, most people find that to be too repetitive. So, the "default" approach is to use JSX syntax, which converts `<MyComponent a={1} b="blah">Text</MyComponent>` into `React.createElement(MyComponent, {a : 1, b : "blah"}, "Text")`.

Yes, JSX requires a transformation/compiler step. As I said earlier, a typical "real" app needs build tools to bundle anyway, and you're probably targeting a variety of browsers but don't want to restrict yourself to the least common denominator subset of JS syntax, so you're probably already using a transpiler too.

But, if you truly don't want to use JSX for whatever reason, there's plenty of choices:

- Write raw `React.createElement()` calls by hand

- Alias `React.createElement()` as `h()` so it's shorter

- Use a functional VDOM wrapper generation library like `react-hyperscript-helpers` (https://github.com/Jador/react-hyperscript-helpers/).

- Use a runtime JS templating library like Dominic Gannaway's `t7` templates(https://github.com/trueadm/t7)

- Use an actual separate templating library, like `react-templates`(https://github.com/wix/react-templates) or `handlebars-react`(https://github.com/stevenvachon/handlebars-react)

Almost everyone chooses to use JSX. The docs use JSX. Tutorials across the internet use JSX. It's the accepted approach. But, it's not _required_. You do not _need_ it. There are other options. It's your choice.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/81fkhi/this_may...

Yes, I believe that is definitely what the author was going for. If you don't pay market rate for development, you're 9 out of 10 times going to regret it.

at least he knew the password and wasn't relying on the face recog to get into the phone, that could have been rough

IIRC he didn't use the passcode, they switched over to a backup phone.

For presentations like these you always have multiple devices standing by, ready to flip over to at a moment's notice.

I'm pretty sure the backup phone had an imitation of Face ID unlocking.

How are you "pretty sure" about that?