This is mostly just a complaint about how good React is. It's so good that it's difficult for the technical benefits of alternatives to outweigh the social benefits of choosing React.
Note that this is neither a major compliment to React's technical merits nor a criticism of React's competitors. In fact, I don't even disagree with the author on some of his claims, such as:
> React is no longer winning by technical merit. Today it is winning by default.
> That reflex creates a self-perpetuating cycle where network effects, rather than technical fit, decide architecture.
I agree! But teams are still largely choosing the better option, because the benefits of React are indeed outweighing the benefits of choosing an alternative. What the author is missing is simply that the technical benefits of an alternative are small except in narrow use cases. And I suspect most competent teams do in fact identify if they're in those narrow use cases and correctly choose an alternative.
Note that this is neither a major compliment to React's technical merits nor a criticism of React's competitors. In fact, I don't even disagree with the author on some of his claims, such as:
> React is no longer winning by technical merit. Today it is winning by default.
> That reflex creates a self-perpetuating cycle where network effects, rather than technical fit, decide architecture.
I agree! But teams are still largely choosing the better option, because the benefits of React are indeed outweighing the benefits of choosing an alternative. What the author is missing is simply that the technical benefits of an alternative are small except in narrow use cases. And I suspect most competent teams do in fact identify if they're in those narrow use cases and correctly choose an alternative.