The only two that I'd put on the same level are jQuery and React. And people are still happily using jQuery to this day (maybe happy is the wrong word). So I don't think React is going anywhere for a long time but if something better comes out then why is that a bad thing?

It is more about the relative instability of Javascript as a platform versus nearly any other platform out there.

Skills I learned in college about writing SQL are still relevant today, several decades later. Skills I learned coding for iOS (even Swift!) years ago are still relevant today. CSS and HTML skills I learned decades ago are still relevant, etc etc. Python/ Django knowledge from 10 years ago is still largely relevant. React/ jQuery/ EmberJS/ Vue/ Angular/ Grunt/ Gulp/ Webpack/ Underscore/ CoffeeScript/ etc... damned near every Javascript library I've ever worked on has an extremely limited lifespan in terms of relevance. Even within React, it's hard to keep relevant. Class based React? We're doing Hooks now!

> why is that a bad thing?

It's only bad if you have to try and maintain 10 year old Javascript and in order to do it, you have to learn a whole new paradigm. IMO it's doubly bad right now since so many people are abandoning semantic HTML and more or less rolling everything as their own custom components.

Not exactly the case for protects like Crank built in the JSX "paradigm".

Vue (solving for not not enough batteries included / ecosystem fragmentation)

To be fair React is now seven years old. So even in the unlikely event that it’s going to be replaced by something else, the old cliche that the JS ecosystem is always churning too fast seems a bit overblown. It’s on track to be the dominant tool for the best part of a decade.

> It’s on track to be the dominant tool for the best part of a decade.

My post was in response to a suggestion that the fix for all the React issues was in fact replacing React entirely.

MooTools!

javascript /s/java/churn