When comparing Marko Widgets vs React, the Slant community recommends React for most people. In the question“What are the best JavaScript libraries for building a UI?” React is ranked 3rd while Marko Widgets is ranked 17th. The most important reason people chose React is:
Since every single UI component is created independently in JavaScript, it becomes very easy to reuse them throughout your app without having to re-write them.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Very fast on the server
Using Marko and Marko Widgets to render UI components on the server was shown to be 10x faster than React. A benchmark application was built using both Marko+Marko Widgets and React and the results of rendering a page of 100 search results on the server was measured and compared. Both the Marko Widgets code and the React code used a very similar UI components-based appraoch.
Pro Stateful UI components
Marko Widgets supports stateful UI components. Marko Widgets will automatically rerender a UI component if its internal state changes. A UI component's state is stored in the this.state
property that is a vanilla JavaScript object. All changes to the state should go through the this.setState(name, value)
method (or this.replaceState(newState)
)
Pro Very fast in the browser
Marko Widgets utilizes the morphdom module for updating the DOM and that module was shown to be very competitive with React and virtual-dom.
Pro The real DOM is the source of truth
Marko Widgets does not rely on a virtual DOM abstraction. Instead, the real DOM is always the source of truth. When updating the DOM, the newly rendered DOM is compared with the real DOM.
Pro DOM diffing/patching
Marko Widgets updates the DOM using a DOM diffing/patching algorithm to minimize the number of changes to the DOM when rerendering a UI component due to state changes. The DOM diffing/patching is handled by the independent morphdom library.
Pro Simple JavaScript API for rendering a UI component
The following code illustrates how the render(input)
method exported by a UI component's JavaScript module can be used to render a UI component and insert the resulting HTML into the DOM:
require('./app-hello')
.render({
name: 'John'
})
.appendTo(document.body)
Pro Batched updates
Updates to the DOM are deferred until all state changes have completed for the current tick. That is, changing a widget's state will not cause the UI component's DOM to immediately be updated.
Pro Declarative eventing binding
Marko Widgets offers a simple mechanism for declaratively binding DOM event and custom event listeners to widget handler methods. For example:
<button type="button" w-onClick="handleClick">
Click Me
</button>
And then in the JavaScript:
module.exports = require('marko-widgets').defineComponent({
// ...
handleClick: function(event, el) {
this.doSomething();
}
});
Pro Marko templating engine for the view
Marko is a fast and lightweight, general purpose HTML-based templating engine that compiles templates to CommonJS modules and supports streaming, async rendering and custom tags. Marko is used for rendering UI components and Marko Widgets is used to bind client-side behavior to rendered UI components. Marko can be used independently of Marko Widgets and this makes it suitable in all situations where HTML rendering is needed.
Pro Efficient binding of behavior for UI components rendered on the server.
When utilizing server-side rendering of a UI, Marko Widgets does not require that the UI be rerendered again in the browser just to bind behavior. Instead, extra information is passed down from the server to the client to allow Marko Widgets to efficiently bind widgets to UI components rendered on the server.
Pro Lightweight (~10 KB gzipped)
The runtime for Marko Widgets is extremely small. The runtime is very small and this makes Marko Widgets much simpler and easier to understand and debug. Marko Widgets offloads much of the work and complexity to compile time code so that the work required at runtime is minimal.
Pro Easily reference nested DOM elements and nested widgets
Marko Widgets supports the concept of "scoped" IDs. With scoped IDs, a nested DOM element or nested widget can be given an ID that is unique within the scope of the containing widget. At runtime the actual ID will be the scoped ID prefixed with the ID of the parent widget. A reference nested widget can be obtained using the this.getWidget(scopedId)
method and a reference to a nested DOM element can be obtained using the this.getEl(scopedId)
method.
For example:
<div class="my-app" w-bind>
<button type="button" w-onClick="handleButtonClick">
Click Me
</button>
<alert-overlay visible="false" w-id="alert">
This is a test alert.
</alert-overlay>
<div w-id="clickMessage" style="display: none;">
You clicked the button!
</div>
</div>
And then in the JavaScript code:
module.exports = require('marko-widgets').defineComponent({
// ...
handleButtonClick: function(event, el) {
var alertWidget = this.getWidget('alert');
// Call the `show()` function implemented by the alert widget:
alertWidget.show();
var clickMessageEl = this.getEl('clickMessage');
clickMessageEl.style.display = 'block';
}
});
Pro Efficient event delegation
Marko Widgets supports efficient event delegation to avoid attaching DOM event listeners to each DOM node. Instead, Marko Widgets attaches event listeners on the document.body
event for events that bubble. Events captured at the root are efficiently delegated out to widgets.
Pro UI components can be embedded in a Marko template using a custom tag
The following code illustrates how a UI component can be embedded in a Marko template:
<div>
<app-hello name="Frank"/>
</div>
Pro Easy to reuse components
Since every single UI component is created independently in JavaScript, it becomes very easy to reuse them throughout your app without having to re-write them.
Pro Supported by Facebook and Instagram
React is built by Facebook engineers initially to be used only for their inner projects especially to solve the problem of building large complex applications with constantly changing data.
Pro Server side rendering
React can render it's components and data server side, then it sends those components as HTML to the browser.
This ensures faster initial loading time and SEO friendliness out of the box, since it's indexed as any other static website by search engines.
Pro Virtual DOM support
Instead of relying on the DOM, React implements a virtual DOM from scratch, allowing it to calculate precisely what needs to be patched during the next screen refresh. This is orders of magnitude faster than fiddling with the DOM itself.
Pro One-way data flow
React's one-way data binding (or one-way data flow) means that it's easy to see where and how your UI is updated and where you need to make changes. It's also very easy to keep everything modular, fast and well-organized.
Pro Can be used with different libraries
ReactJS can be used independently as the only library for building the front-end, or it can be used alongside JavaScript libraries such as jQuery, or even Angular.
Pro Template engine independent
React provides a template engine (JSX) which is easy to use. But it's not mandatory.
Pro Widely used
The framework is widely used in the industry.
Pro Functional programming style leads to less buggy UIs
Pro Easy to write tests
Since React's virtual DOM system is implemented completely in JavaScript, it's very easy to write UI test cases.
Pro Good debugging tools
React has an official Chrome Extension which is used as a developing and debugging tool. It can be used to quickly and painlessly debug your application or view the whole application structure as it's rendered.
Pro Flux architecture pattern
Flux is a platform agnostic pattern which can technically be used with any application or programming language.
One of Flux' main features is that it enforces uni-directional data flow which means that views do not change the data directly.
With React this is useful because this way it's easier to understand an application as it starts getting more complicated. By having two-way data binding, lead to unpredictable changes, where changing one model's data would end up updating another model. By using the Flux architecture, this can be avoided.
Pro Extensive SVG support
Since React v0.15, SVG is fully supported. React supports all SVG attributes that are recognized by today's browsers.
Pro Keep control over your app's logic
React is just a view library, so you still have (almost) full control over how your app behaves.
Pro Supported by ClojureScript libraries
Reagent, Om, Rum, etc.
Pro Tested on Facebook itself
React is used on one of the most visited websites on the planet, Facebook. With stellar results and with millions of people experiencing it every day.
Cons
Con Heavy on memory
React's virtual DOM is fast, but it requires storing elements in the virtual and real DOM increasing memory usage for the page. This can be a real problem for single-page webapps designed to be left running in the background.
Con Template(view) mixed into code
Con Verbose
React gets a little verbose as applications get more complicated with more components. It's simply not as straightforward as simply writing HTML and JavaScript would be.
Con You have to learn a new syntax
Requires learning a custom syntax, JSX, that has some gotchas and introduce complexity, a steeper learning curve, and incompatibility with other tools.
Though you can opt out from JSX and use vanilla JS instead. But that is not recommended since it adds a lot of unneeded complexity which JSX tries to avoid.
Con Not a complete solution
React does not do everything for the developer, it's merely a tool for building the UI of a web app. It does not have support for routing or models, at least not out of the box. While some missing features can be added through libraries, to start using React and use it in production, you still would need to have experience, or at least a good grasp on what the best libraries to use would be.
Con Large file size
React's react.min.js
is 145.5KB in size. It's much larger than some other libraries that offer roughly the same features and it's almost the same size as some MV* frameworks such as Angular or Ember that offer more features out of the box.
Although, it should be mentioned that sometimes having a smaller library may force developers to reinvent the wheel and write inefficient implementations on features that React already has. Ending up with a larger application that's harder to maintain and/or that has bad performance.
Con Renders too frequently
Con No support for legacy browsers
React has recently dropped support for Internet Explorer 8. While the library may still work on IE8, issues that affect only IE8 will not be prioritized and/or solved.
