[HN Gopher] Remix web framework aquired by Shopify ___________________________________________________________________ Remix web framework aquired by Shopify Author : betageek Score : 436 points Date : 2022-10-31 14:16 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (remix.run) (TXT) w3m dump (remix.run) | pearjuice wrote: | Any ideas about acquisition cost? How do you value a FOSS | project? | wahnfrieden wrote: | talent hires + brand trademark | tbeseda wrote: | GitHub star count /s | Zealotux wrote: | Congratulations! I was keeping an eye on this project for | production use, and this news is boosting my confidence. | interstice wrote: | Having built a number of headless Shopify sites in Next JS this | is slightly concerning, I was imagining a port over to Hydrogen | at some later date with minimal changes rather than a total | replatform. | | Of course a replatform wouldn't be necessary if Shopify would | help out by - for example - not force logging out (and otherwise | breaking checkout) for users that came from a headless store. | wizwit999 wrote: | Everyone raised seed funding recently, I wonder what was even | their idea of monetization. | dyeje wrote: | Is Shopify shifting away from Rails? | kylehotchkiss wrote: | Shopify has a nice GraphQL API that can be used to build JS | frontends: | https://github.com/Shopify/quilt/tree/main/packages/react-gr... | | I imagine that paired with Remix it'd be easy and fun to build | shops. It doesn't have to replace rails in that regard. | tekbog wrote: | This is something I'd like to know as well and nobody is | talking about it, weird. | Existenceblinks wrote: | Remember the whining people don't take action .. but the guys | who have been silent all along quit .. suddenly shocking | everyone? They will keep saying everything is going great! | fuzzygroup wrote: | Amen! | ecshafer wrote: | We use a lot of React at Shopify on top of Rails, along with Go | and Rust for critical performance systems on the backend. | tinglymintyfrsh wrote: | Makes sense. Ruby dev over at Meta who uses Vue, TS, Rust | WASM, and Rust backend at home. No Go (anymore) or Rails, but | I love Rails, DRY-rb, trailblazer, haml for their | expressiveness and software engineering. | theklr wrote: | Probably not, but going where the market is in terms of | business. Majority of their headless support is for react so | investing in the stack allows them to expand and dictate that | future. (Ancedata: did headless Shopify with ember and was | aggravated in how piss poor their js support was in relation to | React until their dev team told the data). | airstrike wrote: | This is likely a better link: https://shopify.engineering/remix- | joins-shopify | alberth wrote: | Why acquire something that is MIT licensed? | | Is this really just a talent acquisition? | | https://github.com/remix-run/remix | marstall wrote: | that was my thought. an acqhire glammed up. from what I can | tell remix isn't generating much heat. | mdasen wrote: | I wouldn't really call it a talent acquisition. It's more the | same reason that any company pays people to work on open source | projects. For example, Google pays people to make Flutter and | Dart. Are those employees a "talent acquisition"? Clearly no | because they started the project within Google. So then why is | Google paying people to work on some MIT licensed thing? Well, | it gives them a high-quality bit of code to build the things | that are actually their business and it gives them a certain | amount of control over the direction and priorities of the | project. | | Let's say that I make a library X that your company uses. You | can use X for free so why acquire X? Well, if X is a project of | your company, that can give your company positive reputational | benefits by association. You can set the priorities and roadmap | of X. I'd be working at your company so I'd be there to help | other developers. I'd see the friction you had in your | environment and want to remove that friction. | | I'm not saying that the owner of an MIT licensed project can do | anything they want. There's always the possibility of forks. | However, there is still a certain amount of control. For | example, Google's control of Go basically meant that they | controlled the decision to go with a non-copying garbage | collector because that was what would be best for Google and | its codebase (and most people wouldn't care about the trade- | offs that much). | | I think it's more than just "here are some smart people we can | acquihire." I think it gives them influence over a project they | might see as important. | whalesalad wrote: | we buyin frameworks now | super256 wrote: | Anyone remembers that upon Remix' initial release, one had to | buy a licence for 250 USD? | | https://web.archive.org/web/20201204025307/https://remix.run... | esprehn wrote: | Michael and Ryan have always been about trying to make money | from their React expertise. They literally created a company | called React Training: https://reacttraining.com/team and | have had a fairly lucrative business doing workshops for | years. | | No harm in trying to get folks to pay for a framework. It | doesn't seem it worked, but I can't fault them for trying! | jholman wrote: | Apropos of which, it always baffled me how bad the React | Router documentation was, given that the company name was | react-training. It was like an anti-ad. | esprehn wrote: | Some could argue the just okay docs were driving | consulting business. Even the TFA mentions they started | conversations with them because they were using react | router! :p | zwily wrote: | React Training worked really well, was very profitable till | Covid shut it down. Obviously not a scalable startup type | thing but still a nice little business. | PKop wrote: | So what? This is akin to crowdfunding, or patronage. Many | people were happy to have early access while supporting the | project. | super256 wrote: | I just wanted to post this here because I think it's an | interesting piece of trivia. | adoxyz wrote: | Congrats to the Remix team. | | I'm not entirely sure how you acquire a web framework or what the | end-goal is, but I'm sure smarter people than I have the done | maths. | PhoenixReborn wrote: | Acquihire - you're not looking to buy the framework itself, | you're looking to get the people who built it to work for you | instead. | ComputerGuru wrote: | remix feels like the react version of htmx. I'd just use the | latter, tbh. | exogen wrote: | I suspect you are confused about what Remix is, unless I vastly | misunderstand htmx. | | By example, a request comes into my app's web server at | `/posts/123`: how would htmx be involved at all in (1) | understanding the request, and (2) generating the response? | Remix isn't just client-side, it's also a server with routing | and SSR. | ComputerGuru wrote: | Yes, the routing part isn't covered by stock htmx but it can | be shimmed server-side or client-side. The more "fundamental" | bit as I understand it is that each logical/visible component | is served by the server-side in a remix app as a separate, | fully-rendered html component, instead of needing to render | the entirety of the response to effectively obtain just a | part of the view. Htmx provides that bit of the puzzle | lending the remix-like aspect to a traditional server-side | app. | EduardoBautista wrote: | I don't understand what is the business case for acquiring an | open-source framework? | | Can someone explain why couldn't they just contribute or fork the | project? | tmorton wrote: | It's an aquihire - they get the core team on staff. They can | influence the open-source project roadmap, and get priority | support for their integrations. | sgallant wrote: | Offering a great developer experience (DX) when building | e-commerce sites is core to their strategy. DX was a key reason | why they beat Squarespace in the early e-commerce days: | developers preferred building Shopify sites over Squarespace | sites. | | It's in Shopify's best interest to maintain that developer love | and Remix can help with that. Here are two hypothetical | situations to highlight that point: | | 1. If someone else, say, Swell [1], had better DX than Shopify, | we would see Shopify start to lose market share to Swell for | the segment of the market where developers can influence the | tooling decision (i.e. agencies). | | 2. If in two years from now, everyone is using Next.js to build | e-commerce sites, that would put Vercel (the company behind | Next.js) in a good position to promote/partner with other | e-commerce providers or build their own e-commerce solution and | compete with Shopify. | | The developer market segment is important and DX is key there. | | [1] https://www.swell.is/ | SeanAnderson wrote: | It's pretty decent, passive marketing, too. One could argue a | similar effect would be achieved by a fork, but I don't think | it would ring as true to SWEs. | | I think about Google a lot more due to how prolific Material | Design is throughout my web experience, I think about Meta a | lot more due to how prolific React is throughout my web | experience, etc. | nilsbunger wrote: | Rewinding earlier, what is the case for VC investment in an | open source framework? Usually it's some variation of | proprietary extensions ("open core"), enterprise support, | and/or hosting. Docker, Red Hat, MongoDB are prominent | examples. | | So that could also be the rationale for Shopify acquiring it. | Alternatively, they could've just wanted to acquihire an | excellent team. | jspash wrote: | There seems to be a disconnect between what Shopify do internally | and what they ask of their users. With Hydrogen and now Remix you | would think they have their sh*t together. But when the official | docs recommend that you inline jquery click handlers for a simple | adjustment to their shop, I just don't know what to think. | | All in all the Shopify dev experience for me is on par with | Wordpress. I hold my nose and cash the cheques. Then hurriedly | leave the premises in a long trench coat with my hat pulled down | to avoid being recognised. | dmix wrote: | There's often a disconnect between the technical staff who | write customer-facing documentation vs the backend engineering | teams. | | Often the technical writers will be working closely with real | customers. The customers will come to them 90% of the time with | hacky custom jQuery stores + the support staff won't be highly | skilled Front-end engineers (usually a junior-dev grasp of | JS/web dev). | leviathant wrote: | Shopify likes to brag about having 4,000 developers. Given | the output of the company - that comes across to me as bloat. | dewey wrote: | Judging the visible output as a metric for how many | developers a company needs is very naive. | | Think about the teams that don't directly interact with the | outside like infrastructure, business intelligence, hiring | (onboarding tools), internal tooling, all the work they do | on Ruby (https://shopify.engineering/shopify-ruby-at-scale- | research-i...). | rhaway84773 wrote: | Shopify probably employs many devs whose job is likely to | pretty much operate as consultants for some of their | larger customers. | dubcanada wrote: | Why do you feel that way? | | What is wrong with a quick inline jquery click handler? What | part of web development requires webpack + react + tailwindcss | + a bunch of random packages that provide 1 function? Sometimes | people just want to get stuff done, and doing a simple | $('.cart').on('click', () => {}); does the job. | | If you want to get fancy as another user posted, use the full | API suite and do it all yourself. It's robust and rather | friendly to integrate with. | enumjorge wrote: | If the argument is for minimalism, why use jQuery when | vanilla JS suffices? | dirkg wrote: | because JQ is already loaded, and it IS minimal. You could | do querySelector(...).addEventListener etc but why would | you? | cobertos wrote: | Because you don't need another library to do it? Why load | jQuery at all in 2022? | mritchie712 wrote: | It's legacy. A lot of people know jquery from when the | things it does were verbose in vanilla JS. New devs | rarely learn jquery, so it will die. | good8675309 wrote: | I get the purist push for Vanilla JS but for me it's | still way too verbose. W3C has had decades to fix it and | while it's improved it's still verbose as heck. Just | implement the jQuery API into Vanilla JS and people would | stop using jQuery. | AprilArcus wrote: | "just" | good8675309 wrote: | I mean the W3C has an annual revenue of $5.7M so it's not | like they don't have the resources to start setting some | vision and goals towards this. | dmitriid wrote: | Look at who makes up W3C. Then look at how much it costs | to be a member. | | They could afford _anything_ if they cared to. Most of | the time they don 't and so the small players like Chrome | get away with anything. | bcrosby95 wrote: | I'm really surprised they don't get more shit for it. | | People love to make fun of Java for being verbose but | then go all googoo eyes over Vanilla JS. As a Java | developer for 20 years now, using it makes me think a | Java developer from the '90s designed it. | | But, you know, it's JS so it gets a pass. | c-smile wrote: | That's what I did in Sciter: | | 1. Added element.$("selector") and element.$$("selector") | functions. Later one allows to work with JQ sets: | for(let el of parent.$$(".child")) ... | | 2. Added element.on("eventname" [,"selector"], handler) | and element.off() | | These two allow to reduce need for JQuery to almost zero. | | Also added JSX as a built-in feature to JS/runtime. So, | function Child(props) { return <p>Generated | child {props.index}</p>; } | function Main() { const list = [1,2,3]; | return <main> { list.map( el => <Child | index={el} /> ) } </main> } | // add the list to the DOM: | document.body.append(<Main />); | | These three simple things, together with | elment.patch(...JSX...) eliminate need for as JQuery as | ReactJS almost completely. | rhaway84773 wrote: | A significant chunk of Shopify's user base is gonna be | copying/pasting snippets they've found online. | | You're much more likely to find a snippet using jQuery that | was created over the last 10 years or so that's consistent | and works correctly than you are vanillaJS. | | VanillaJS queries would be all over the place with multiple | if/else's for IE, Chrome, WebKit, Mozilla, etc. | rhaway84773 wrote: | What does VanillaJS get you over jQuery? The only practical | argument I can think of is the performance improvement of | not loading another library and loading all the extra KBs. | | But nearly every Shopify website's hero image itself would | completely dwarf any bandwidth concerns jQuery might cause. | | In the meanwhile, jQuery is a much better known API among | developers, there's far more and higher quality | documentation and snippets available in it on the internet, | and there are fewer foot guns. | | jQuery easily seems the superior choice over VanillaJS, | with very few downsides given Shopify's use case. | melony wrote: | Nothing wrong with it but it doesn't make for coherent | documentation. For a plugin-centric company like Shopify | where third party integrations are crucial to its business | model, you would expect more hand holding and better quality | in its documentation. Their docs for common use cases like | jquery and react/vue/svelte should be clearly laid out. | | Shopify seems to be an incoherent mess right now with poor | engineering management. The stories that I am hearing are | that a third of their engineering workforce consist of | interns and the other third consist of juniors. They have | very few engineering seniors and staffs, relative to most | companies of their scale and market cap. | mkl95 wrote: | Most places that employ rockstar frontend guys are like that. | Management let them build their design systems and other cool | stuff, but most of their backlog consists of new spaghetti on | top of old spaghetti plus bug fixes. The cool stuff is used on | greenfield projects. | [deleted] | theturtletalks wrote: | They have a perfectly good Storefront API that allows you to | build any storefront. We use Shopify with Next.js and if we | ever wanted to switch platforms, we would just change the API | calls and keep the same frontend. | Existenceblinks wrote: | I wouldn't be surprised if they swap out liquid and its json | based layout config .. despite they keep saying everything is | doing great. New gen developer probably got gaslit by React | vibe and demands change (admittedly I made this shit up) | btown wrote: | This acquisition is very much in the context of | https://hydrogen.shopify.dev/roadmap/#first-quarter and | https://github.com/Shopify/hydrogen - Shopify very much wants | to move to the modern era. | | And to address your point, it's not gaslighting to say that | React enables interactions that would be essentially | impossible if restricted to server-side templating. But | there's certainly some degree to which trendiness and a | desire to attract developers into their ecosystem is driving | this as well. | Existenceblinks wrote: | Remix approach which is Shopify is going with is having | data loader code separated from client side code. So it | could be .. Solid.js or vanilla.js that enables the | interaction part. It's always has been this way, this time | it's just writing html renderer in js. | BryanBeshore wrote: | FWIW: Tobi mentioned that if he had to do it all over again, | he would still build the admin and business logic of Shopify | in Ruby on Rails, but would probably build their liquid | rendering in Rust or something like it | | https://twitter.com/tobi/status/1585459224506671104?s=20&t=0. | .. | cultofmetatron wrote: | elixir/phoenix gives you a lot of the same productivity as | rails with vastly higher performance. the big benefit to | rails these days is the massive ecosystem of drop in gems. | reducesuffering wrote: | Probably only because that's what he's familiar with. Rails | has the most ubiquitous scale problems that large co's keep | migrating away from, and new devs are trending away from | it. Shopify investing into the JS/TS backend world is just | another domino falling of Ruby/Rails descending into Perl- | like prevalence. | weatherlite wrote: | They are spending tens of millions building a ruby JIT so | I am not sure you are painting an accurate picture | here... | reducesuffering wrote: | So they recognize they're having problems with speed. | Dropbox also spent years trying to JIT Python faster with | Pyston, and were unsuccessful. They now are leveraging | Rust and Go instead. | skinnymuch wrote: | how do you keep up with developments like this? I | suddenly see how interested I am in what stacks companies | are using and more so what are they going to be using in | the near to mid term future. | ativzzz wrote: | I imagine following the tech blogs of certain companies - | you can read about dropbox's engine rewrite here - | https://dropbox.tech/infrastructure/rewriting-the-heart- | of-o... | reducesuffering wrote: | For trends: | | StackOverflow Trends: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/ | trends?tags=ruby%2Ctypesc... | | GitHub Star History: https://star-history.com/ | | NPM trends: https://npmtrends.com/ | | For specific co tech stacks: | | Tech Co migrations: https://github.com/kokizzu/list-of- | tech-migrations | | https://stackshare.io/wikipedia/wikipedia | | https://builtwith.com/ | | Company GitHub page | | And HN in general, like surfacing this Shopify | acquisition. | dheera wrote: | How do you acquire a framework? Why not just use it? | | It's not like there are physicists trying to acquire Dirac | notation. | Existenceblinks wrote: | I have strange feeling about these nodejs server based and the | direction of the web and the chaotic of Big|VC-backed corps | playing chess. And that also causes effect on web job market. .. | what's your retirement plan? | colinramsay wrote: | I'm not sure how to feel about this, but my main wish for Remix | is a public roadmap and full development in the open. There is | overlap but also healthy competition between it and NextJS, and | I'm really interested to see where Remix goes next. | PKop wrote: | . | nathancahill wrote: | I read the opposite. There currently isn't, so it will be | Ryan's #1 focus. | [deleted] | lloydatkinson wrote: | Wow. With the recent remix drama this is an interesting | development. | rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote: | Which one more specifically? :) | thangngoc89 wrote: | I don't follow discord or their github's repo, just reading | release notices so could you please elaborate? | lloydatkinson wrote: | One of the main authors tweeted a bunch of crap about | numerous other frameworks and then delete it a few hours | later | tasubotadas wrote: | How does remix compare to nextjs? | krtscrum wrote: | https://remix.run/blog/remix-vs-next | megaman821 wrote: | Remix looks like a standard server rendered web framework (like | Rails or Django) except that is use React for its template | language, and React has the advantage of running interactively | on the client-side. | | NextJS pre-generates (or generates on a trigger) most its | pages. Like Remix it also uses React as its template language | and client-side interactivity. | kkielhofner wrote: | Interesting development. If I were to guess who would acquire | (acquihire?) Remix I would have said Cloudflare. | youngtaff wrote: | Cloudflare acquihired the Linc team a while back | gabrielizaias wrote: | Interesting move by Shopify, given that they have Hydrogen [0]. I | was half expecting Hydrogen to become its own all-purpose | framework, but alas, they seem to plan for both to co-exist. | | > While Hydrogen is focused on commerce, Remix is focused lower | in the stack, and will continue to be a general web solution that | scales from content through commerce and all the way to apps. | Shopify will use Remix across many projects where it makes sense, | and you can expect to see more of our developer platform with | first-class Remix support over time. | | [0] https://hydrogen.shopify.dev | jplhomer wrote: | We're working on a new version of Hydrogen which is powered by | Remix: https://hydrogen.shopify.dev/roadmap/ | | It's nice to not have to build two meta-frameworks (along with | docs and support) so Hydrogen can focus on commerce things. | matthewcford wrote: | Will there be beta releases before Feb? I'm looking to kick | off some headless shopify projects soon - and ideally I don't | have to rewrite them in a few months time. | jdelman wrote: | Congratulations to the Remix team. Though neither Remix's nor | Shopify's blog posts make it clear, I'm guessing Michael and Ryan | will continue to lead Remix development while hopefully having a | team of focused engineers working with them. Since Shopify really | believes in and wants to use the tech, it's great that they'll be | able to pay engineers to continue to develop it in the open. I | believe Remix also was VC funded so Shopify probably also made | their investors whole? | swyx wrote: | happy noises from JJ who led their seed | https://twitter.com/josephjacks_/status/1587136935981481984?... | warent wrote: | Nice little chunk of change for him! | | Wow and their (OSS Capital) first exit since founding in | 2018. Talk about patience, but well worth it I'm sure! | emptysea wrote: | I'm curious if remix will remain general purpose or if it will | gradually drift into just being used for Shopify things. | lairv wrote: | Aren't Remix and Hydrogen supposed to fill the same role ? | Despite what Remix's creators try to argue, for me Remix is great | for low interactivity website like e-commerce website, even doing | a simple client-side request without refresh is a pain in Remix | jplhomer wrote: | We'll be redesigning Hydrogen to be powered by Remix: | https://hydrogen.shopify.dev/roadmap/ | jacquesc wrote: | Anyone currently using Remix in a production app? Read through | the docs and it seems pretty interesting. Can't really get a | sense for how stable it is though. | | I know from prior use of React Router, the maintainers love the | big rewrites between major version numbers. | Existenceblinks wrote: | Mix feeling of this Correlation: | | React Router -> Remix | | Redux -> RSC | | Snowpack -> Astro | | "This time, we will make it right" kind of feeling. | rozenmd wrote: | I built a status page service | (https://hackernews.onlineornot.com/) on Remix, I find the data | fetching patterns (and SEO) make a hell of a lot more sense | than Next.js | roci89 wrote: | Yeah we use it. It has been fantastic. Having a mutation story | is an absolute game changer for productivity | colinramsay wrote: | Yes. The use of loaders and actions blurs the lines between | client and server. It's really productive. There are a few gaps | that need filling, one that comes to mind is | internationalisation [1] | | I am very surprised that NextJS has left it so long to consider | mutations - they're apparently coming up with an RFC on that | but it seems to be somewhat behind closed doors. | | [1] https://github.com/remix-run/remix/discussions/2877 | jacquesc wrote: | I agree, the API on remix seems awesome | orliesaurus wrote: | I never used Remix, why is it worth it investing in Remix? | vosper wrote: | Having used both, if you already know NextJS well then I | wouldn't bother switching to Remix. If you want some of the | Remixy API-niceness in NextJS land then you can use tRPC (for | example, there are probably other options). | | Nothing against Remix, I do like it, it just isn't | differentiated enough from NextJS to both switching for me - | yet, at least. | Scarbutt wrote: | It's just an optimization to make your react pages load faster. | emadabdulrahim wrote: | This is huge. Remix is my favorite React framework at the moment. | It is by far the best abstraction I've seen of client/server | model. Their API abstraction layer is just right, working with | native browser and nodejs APIs, not obscure them. Typescript | support is amazing. | | I'd bet my money on Remix model and direction vs Nextjs | pokpokpok wrote: | could you characterize the difference you see between them? (to | someone more familiar with nextjs?) | emadabdulrahim wrote: | High-level summary of Remix data | model:https://remix.run/blog/remix-data-flow | | See also https://remix.run/blog/remix-vs-next | tpmx wrote: | > This is huge. Remix is my favorite React framework _at the | moment_. | | I suppose this means it's temporarily huge. | ornornor wrote: | Wait what? We have frameworks for frameworks now? What?? How | did we get there :( | carlhjerpe wrote: | Have a library never depended on another or just wrapped it | up nicer with helpers and stuff? You don't write ASM or C a | lot anymore either right? | | Many of these examples can make it easier to do things right, | increasing performance by doing less things (better defaults | etc) so I don't think something like this should be frowned | upon. | didip wrote: | Everyone told me that Javascript ecosystem is maturing and | slowing down. | | Everyone told me to just consider either React or Vue. | | But that doesn't seem to be the case. | reducesuffering wrote: | For 7-8 years now you've been able to use just React, even | not learning functional components. You don't need to add | Next, Remix, or learn Vue, and your career would be safe | for the next decade with how many React codebases there | are. | Traubenfuchs wrote: | Java has the same in the form of the Spring framework that, | afaik, forces you to write your own entry point controller | and take care of providing the servlet container yourself. | There is the Spring Boot framework which sets all of this up | for you in about 10 lines of code. | | People also made fun of this "framework for a framework" | paradigm. But, if it works, so be it. | tr1ll10nb1ll wrote: | There's nothing wrong about that. Your existing options | remain and WILL remain. The new options just feel more | productive (but that's subjective too). | | If you prefer writing separate backend code: | | - You can use any backend with Next.js/Remix if you want to. | (https://remix.run/docs/en/v1/guides/bff) | | - You don't have to use either of those for your front-end in | the first place. You can just use React with Vite. | | Thinking about SSR/SSG? You can use the Vite SSR plugin (does | serverless SSR really well too) | | If you prefer having your server and client coupled and want | to go in with the new options (using React as your library): | | - Use Next.js/Remix for everything. You can then choose parts | of your architecture individually (for instance Prisma as | ORM, TRPC/Blitz's RPC model as your API model (or Remix's | action-loader pattern), etc.) | | These are just two options and probably all you'll need to | know to be productive unless you WANT to know more in which | case you'll inevitably do your own research. | savanaly wrote: | I think React is better described as a library than a | framework. Frameworks for libraries sounds entirely | reasonable to me. | super256 wrote: | React does indeed describe itself as a library. | eurasiantiger wrote: | It is closer to Twig than Symfony. | davnicwil wrote: | not only reasonable but an inevitable conclusion I'd argue. | | I've been waiting for the current crop of React frameworks | (of which Remix is my current favourite but they all bring | cool thing to the table) to appear since the early days of | using it - it was only a matter of time. | | First the library, then the patterns, then the ecosystem of | add ons implementing those patterns, then the projects that | scaffold sensible sets of those together for you along with | a build setup etc, and finally... the all in one framework | that does it all out the box. | Traubenfuchs wrote: | > the all in one framework that does it all out the box | | Wouldn't Angular and Vue count as cohesive "batteries | included" frameworks? | | Having to work on your own build setup feels very inane. | klysm wrote: | Not 100% sure this is a positive thing for the Remix framework | long term. | evtothedev wrote: | > I'd bet my money on Remix model and direction vs Nextjs | | With Nextjs 13, the patterns are actually kind of converge. See | this whole thread from Ryan at Remix with his thoughts on it: | https://twitter.com/ryanflorence/status/1586820806625046529 | psychoslave wrote: | Wait, isn't React a js framework? Is Remix a framework over a | framework? | ajgrover wrote: | People are using the term "metaframework" these days to | describe things like Remix and Next that build on top of | React as the view layer and provide many of the other bits | you might need to get a fully-fledged web app up and running. | Including but not limited to routing, performance | optimizations for images and fonts, data fetching, SSR/static | generation & regeneration | underwater wrote: | A meta framework on top of a Meta library? | pier25 wrote: | React is a library. Remix is a framework. | dntrkv wrote: | React is a framework though. | | The main differentiator between the two is Inversion of | Control. | | React developers write their code to be called by the React | application. You aren't choosing to include React or not | (what you would do with a library), your whole frontend | application is built within the context of the React | environment in which it will run. | reducesuffering wrote: | Dan Abramov, React lead, says this: | | "i like to think of React as two things. React is a | library. it is _also_ an architecture (which frameworks | may implement) " | | https://twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/158508871644361523 | 4 | vlunkr wrote: | It's technically a UI library. Though the line there is | fuzzy. | vosper wrote: | If we're calling both "framework" (though as another | commenter mentioned, the React package is pretty much just a | UI library) then you can think of React as a UI framework and | Remix as an application framework. You use the React UI | framework in the Remix (or NextJS) application framework. | jahewson wrote: | Vercel already ate Remix's lunch. | theklr wrote: | While it may seem that way there's still plenty of market | share on the table. Add vercel's increasing coupling to its | deployment system for best features, others will always | welcome more agnostic approaches. | mr90210 wrote: | By far. | kylehotchkiss wrote: | I was surprised how calm the remix developers reactions to | the next 13 announcement were given how similar some of the | new next features are. But now it makes sense! Upcoming | acquisition on the horizon. | jackbravo wrote: | Very related: | https://twitter.com/ryanflorence/status/1587096603822673920 | | > Seeing that Next.js 13 preview before this acquisition | would have put me in major defensive mode "HEY THATS OUR | API" but now I'm just super chill and can work on Remix | instead of my mental health | asadlionpk wrote: | Because they cashed out, don't care anymore $_$. Looks | like Shopify's diligence team should be blamed here. | lostcolony wrote: | Should they be though? I'm not at all familiar with the | specifics at play here, but from a company perspective, a | player they can then fully shepherd to prioritize their | own needs/desires for, is still a win against an | alternative that would be more expensive to acquire, and | which if they don't they can't own priorities for. | | Obviously there would need to be a balance between | determining roadmap for your own needs, and building | something to more broadly appeal to use in the outside | world, but getting to influence that without creating a | fork is still huge. | | And that's without the other considerations of the | acquihire aspect. | andrewingram wrote: | They already did some very public complaining about it | several months ago when the Layouts RFC was first | published. | kylehotchkiss wrote: | I was expecting a lot more on release day! | tfsh wrote: | the https://remix.run website is beautifully fun. I know lots of | people will berate it for being OTT, but scrolling I wouldn't say | is a critical path given the docs/get-started call to actions. | | I'd be interested to see what Shopify do with remix, are they | more interested in the core team, maintaining remix.run as they | plan to/do(?) use it internally. I assume they want to offer this | framework as a baked in enhancement of Hydrogen[1] to try and | help clients build more robust sites. | | 1: https://hydrogen.shopify.dev | yen223 wrote: | I really like the website. I think it did a great job at | telling us why we should care about Remix the framework, what | problem it was designed to solve. A lot of websites for other | OSS projects struggle with this. | robertlagrant wrote: | It is fun! The Windows crash screen made me laugh. | asim wrote: | Didn't Remix raise funding? Trying to read between the lines | here. No appetite to raise further funding? Too much competition? | Just curious. | PhoenixReborn wrote: | They did raise funding. It's unclear to me what their business | model would have been (compete with Vercel?), and maybe the | struggle to find one was why they decided to go for an | acquisition. | zebnyc wrote: | I remember they had a really expensive subscription model | (even for solo developers). They were looking to get traction | based on the reputation of the founders and other tech | influencers (like Kent C Dodds) in the react community. | | Personally I felt that they were not very clear on who their | target audience was and what was the niche that they were | trying to address to transition from good to great dev | experience. | bredren wrote: | >They were looking to get traction based on the reputation | of the founders and other tech influencers (like Kent C | Dodds) in the react community. | | This had the opposite effect for me. | | I bought Dodds' Epic React course and it seemed to have | been kicked to the curb in favor of joining and boosting | Remix. | | I remember some important course updates were pending, and | seemed to come to a standstill while his entire blog was | re-written in Remix. | | Then a month or so later he joined that team. I really | liked his prior educational content, in this it seemed like | paid promotion for a particular framework. | | The VC raise and bringing Dodds on seemed like peak | (hopefully!) hypecycle for frontend JS stuff. | SevenNation wrote: | This post is puzzling: | | 1. Michael Jackson tags himself as "Co-founder, CEO." | | 2. Remix website gives no indication that it's a company or that | there is a company called "Remix." | | What's going on here? What exactly what "acquired?" | rglover wrote: | I'm always accepting refugees [1]. | | [1] https://github.com/cheatcode/joystick | Toine wrote: | I'll stick to NextJS. Remix seemed fishy from the very start. | kylehotchkiss wrote: | To me, Remix seemed like a very lightweight reimagining of what | Next excelled at (server side react with nice frontend | integration). It was exciting to see how quickly it handled | dynamic renders when running from a Cloudflare worker. But now | that Next 13 has layouts/server components, I prefer Next.js' | approach due to all the other performance work they've done | with images, fonts, css, etc. | | One thing about Remix that always confused me was the very | close ties to react router. It seemed like a distinct and | unrelated concept to me, and the continued association seemed | like a distraction from Remix's potential to be a stronger | competitor to NextJS in the long run | yilugurlu wrote: | Ryan, the co-founder of Remix said this [1] | | > Remix is really just React Router + SSR. | | [1] | https://twitter.com/ryanflorence/status/1586835847583653889 | Aeolun wrote: | I share your feeling, but I don't think it's reasonable. | | I've used both now and it's just fine as a framework. Maybe | it's in the way they present themselves. | phgn wrote: | Definitely it's how Remix presents itself. Their landing page | reads like a marketing pitch by some crazy startup looking to | raise money, not like a stable library to build a product on. | You have to scroll quite far to get any factual information | on what differentiates it from Next.js. I quote: | | > Focused on web standards and modern web app UX, you're | simply going to build better websites | DangitBobby wrote: | Remix has some very clear second system advantages that become | more apparent with usage. Next.js is trying to address many of | their relative shortcomings in the 13 release. I would still | advocate strongly for anyone to give Remix a try. Both are fine | frameworks, at the end of the day. | nell wrote: | ~No they aren't rebuilding Hydrogen in Remix.~ Edit: Spoke too | soon on the above, sorry. | | Remix raised funding. Ran out of money with no scope to self | sustain or raise money. They downsized (see Kent Dodds. Perhaps | there are others). Strong engineers that built the platform got | acquihired. | eatonphil wrote: | > No they aren't rebuilding Hydrogen in Remix. | | Looks like they are. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33407274 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-31 23:00 UTC)