> The biggest problem with React is the JS bloat that's sent to the browser.

There's a web app I use (ClickUp) where I have to watch UI elements load one-by-one, like I'm back on dial-up or something. I'm convinced they end up with more CPU load just doing all the TLS handshakes than they would if they just sent me all the HTML in one go.

ClickUp runs on Angular though.

I explicitly said server side rendering for this reason.

I miss the old LAMP stack, good times

The LAMP stack is still here, waiting for you.

This. It is way faster to build a decent looking prototype using JavaScript Framework Bloat than shipping something leaner. Performance and maintainability are luxuries that make sense to focus on later. This is in no way analogous to using k8s from the get go, which is a technology focused on being flexible and generic enough to maximize choice, rather than speed or developer experience.

Yes, yes, I you want to make a plain HTML form its fast enough, but for a startup 99% of customers want to feel assured by it having a look and feel which simply takes too much time if you are building things up without a framework

>The experience of developing a simple website using React is orders of magnitude better than using html and CSS.

OK well I've done both and I have to say no it's not, but probably my definition of simple is simpler than yours. It also seems to me that the original comment used a simpler than yours model of simplicity.

>Next.js is a pretty good static site generator.

my experience is that Next.js is a lousy static site generator, but reasonable if you want to use React.

I explained why in the rest of the comment. Reusable components, code generation, etc. are a godsend. Copy pasting sections across and within pages, and not being able to generate code is hell.

Simple is better, but bare doesn't necessarily mean simpler.

We're talking about "simple website". You can use any number of LLMs to generate you a boilerplate or use something simple and lightweight like Bootstrap. For a simple website, the things you're talking about add time and effort, not remove them - especially for someone who knows how to do neither.

> The experience of developing a simple website using React is orders of magnitude better than using html and CSS.

Isn't this rather circular? It's only this way if you already know React well enough to be fluent. Learning React and all it's conceptual baggage is a huge jump from understanding html/css/basic js plus the HTTP request/response cycle (all things which you'll need to understand even if you do use React)

Honestly - this sounds a little like Stockholm Syndrome. I've spent a long time actively avoiding React and nothing I've read or seen has led me to think that was a poor decision. Quite the opposite - I feel progressively more vindicated with every passing year.

There is CAPRI (https://capri.build/docs/why/) which allows using both interactive (they call them "islands") and non-interactive Vue/React/Svelte components to build your static website. So I can still split the website into reusable Vue components and if the components are not interactive - I can end up with no JavaScript at all. CAPRI also supports getting your content from several headless CMS (Storyblok, TinaCMS, Sanity, Contentlayer) so once you build the layout content can be easily added or changed.

You don't need NextJS to use React. You don't need React to have reusable components, loops and separating data from presentation.

> The biggest problem with React is the JS bloat that's sent to the browser

What does React bring then? It is slow, overengineered and bloated. It is also the only thing many developers know. Just like PHP 20 years ago.