The React Trap: Why It’s Time to Move On in 2025

React once dazzled the web development world with its promise of a clean, component-based approach. Fast-forward to 2025, and the once-revered framework now shows serious cracks. If you’ve ever felt React’s growing pains in large-scale projects, or simply wondered why the ecosystem feels increasingly fractured, this article is your wake-up call. 1. The Evolution of Frontend Development Back in the day, React’s virtual DOM and component model were groundbreaking. But with the emergence of alternative frameworks and new performance expectations, React’s design choices now feel like relics from a bygone era. Ask yourself: Is it really worth clinging to a system that forces you to adopt workarounds at every turn? 2. Re-Rendering and Performance Pitfalls One of React’s most glaring issues is its approach to state management. The problem here is that React’s model of reactivity is ‘inverted’ from how every other framework, library, and even JavaScript itself works. In every other case, the unit of reactivity is a callback function connected either via an event (e.g. vanilla addEventHandler) or a signal-based reactive primitive (e.g. Vue’s watch). Only in React the unit of reactivity is the full component function itself and this fundamental design decision is the root cause of a lot of the pain around memoization, double renders in StrictMode, and complexity in managing state and placement of code. Signals could fix this to a large extent by removing the need to re-run the entire component function on update. React’s new compiler is just fixing a self-inflicted wound and building on top of an inherently flawed paradigm that doesn’t actually reduce complexity or defects in building web front-ends. Not a big fan of Theo, but his struggles from this video can be helpful to illustrate the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INLq9RPAYUw Example: Here’s a snippet showing how React forces you into memoization hell: function Counter() { const [count, setCount] = React.useState(0); // Obligatory CR comment: Should we wrap this in useCallback to avoid re-creation on every render!? const increment = React.useCallback(() => setCount(c => c + 1), []); return Count: {count}; } 3. The Promises and Pitfalls of the React Compiler In an attempt to save itself, the React team introduced the React Compiler—an automated solution for memoization intended to reduce re-renders. However, as detailed in Developer Way’s article, the verdict is far from rosy: "Despite its grand promises, the React Compiler still presents challenges and requires even further optimizations and deep knowledge to make it work.” - Verdict from Developer Way’s React Compiler article Looks like React’s self-healing mechanism is nothing more than a band-aid on a leaky dam. If you disagree I challenge you to "just enable" the react compiler on your codebase and ship it. 4. Signals and React’s Reluctance Meanwhile the rest of the JavaScript community moves toward more efficient reactive paradigms (check out the TC39 proposal for signals) and the React team stubbornly refuses to incorporate them. This refusal keeps React chained to an outdated reactivity model, forcing developers to continue fighting fires with excessive memoization and workarounds. import { ref } from 'vue'; const count = ref(0); const increment = () => count.value++; Count: {{ count }} 5. Ecosystem Fragmentation and Departure from Web Standards Let’s face it: while React claims to be “just a library,” building a complete application requires dealing with bootstrapping, routing, state management, styling, fetching, etc. Areas where React forces you to reinvent the wheel. It's almost like the aim is to violate every traditional web development standard: Templating is done via HTML, yet React demand you to write JSX. CSS for styling, but React often pushes inline styles or CSS-in-JS (hello, camelCase properties!). Forget about the cascading part. Native routing via window.location, href or history api? Nah, that's not how react routing works. JS fetch? JSON? HTTP? Why, this is react: "use server"!! These deviations create a minefield of bad practices, hacks, and edge cases that only seasoned veterans can navigate without a headache. If you’ve ever tried to debug why a style isn’t applied or why a route misfires, you know the drill. It’s almost laughable—if it weren’t so infuriating. 6. Next.js: A Backend Framework Masquerading as a Frontend Savior Next.js is often touted as the remedy for React’s shortcomings. But let’s call it what it is: a backend framework with a frontend veneer. While Next.js offers features like server-side rendering and static site generation, its integration with React is not a panacea. Conflict of Interest: Next.js’s deep integration with Vercel’s ecosystem raises eyebrows. Its server components seem designed more to bolster Vercel’s business model than t

Feb 24, 2025 - 01:42

The React Trap: Why It’s Time to Move On in 2025

React once dazzled the web development world with its promise of a clean, component-based approach. Fast-forward to 2025, and the once-revered framework now shows serious cracks. If you’ve ever felt React’s growing pains in large-scale projects, or simply wondered why the ecosystem feels increasingly fractured, this article is your wake-up call.

1. The Evolution of Frontend Development

Back in the day, React’s virtual DOM and component model were groundbreaking. But with the emergence of alternative frameworks and new performance expectations, React’s design choices now feel like relics from a bygone era. Ask yourself: Is it really worth clinging to a system that forces you to adopt workarounds at every turn?

2. Re-Rendering and Performance Pitfalls

One of React’s most glaring issues is its approach to state management. The problem here is that React’s model of reactivity is ‘inverted’ from how every other framework, library, and even JavaScript itself works. In every other case, the unit of reactivity is a callback function connected either via an event (e.g. vanilla addEventHandler) or a signal-based reactive primitive (e.g. Vue’s watch). Only in React the unit of reactivity is the full component function itself and this fundamental design decision is the root cause of a lot of the pain around memoization, double renders in StrictMode, and complexity in managing state and placement of code. Signals could fix this to a large extent by removing the need to re-run the entire component function on update. React’s new compiler is just fixing a self-inflicted wound and building on top of an inherently flawed paradigm that doesn’t actually reduce complexity or defects in building web front-ends. Not a big fan of Theo, but his struggles from this video can be helpful to illustrate the issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INLq9RPAYUw

Example: Here’s a snippet showing how React forces you into memoization hell:

function Counter() {
  const [count, setCount] = React.useState(0);
  // Obligatory CR comment: Should we wrap this in useCallback to avoid re-creation on every render!?
  const increment = React.useCallback(() => setCount(c => c + 1), []);
  return <button onClick={increment}>Count: {count}button>;
}

3. The Promises and Pitfalls of the React Compiler

In an attempt to save itself, the React team introduced the React Compiler—an automated solution for memoization intended to reduce re-renders. However, as detailed in Developer Way’s article, the verdict is far from rosy:

"Despite its grand promises, the React Compiler still presents challenges and requires even further optimizations and deep knowledge to make it work.”
- Verdict from Developer Way’s React Compiler article

Looks like React’s self-healing mechanism is nothing more than a band-aid on a leaky dam. If you disagree I challenge you to "just enable" the react compiler on your codebase and ship it.

4. Signals and React’s Reluctance

Meanwhile the rest of the JavaScript community moves toward more efficient reactive paradigms (check out the TC39 proposal for signals) and the React team stubbornly refuses to incorporate them. This refusal keeps React chained to an outdated reactivity model, forcing developers to continue fighting fires with excessive memoization and workarounds.


<script setup>
import { ref } from 'vue';
const count = ref(0);
const increment = () => count.value++;
script>

<template>
   @click="increment">Count: {{ count }}
template>

5. Ecosystem Fragmentation and Departure from Web Standards

Let’s face it: while React claims to be “just a library,” building a complete application requires dealing with bootstrapping, routing, state management, styling, fetching, etc. Areas where React forces you to reinvent the wheel. It's almost like the aim is to violate every traditional web development standard:

Templating is done via HTML, yet React demand you to write JSX.
CSS for styling, but React often pushes inline styles or CSS-in-JS (hello, camelCase properties!). Forget about the cascading part.
Native routing via window.location, href or history api? Nah, that's not how react routing works.
JS fetch? JSON? HTTP? Why, this is react: "use server"!!

These deviations create a minefield of bad practices, hacks, and edge cases that only seasoned veterans can navigate without a headache. If you’ve ever tried to debug why a style isn’t applied or why a route misfires, you know the drill. It’s almost laughable—if it weren’t so infuriating.

6. Next.js: A Backend Framework Masquerading as a Frontend Savior

Next.js is often touted as the remedy for React’s shortcomings. But let’s call it what it is: a backend framework with a frontend veneer. While Next.js offers features like server-side rendering and static site generation, its integration with React is not a panacea.

Conflict of Interest: Next.js’s deep integration with Vercel’s ecosystem raises eyebrows. Its server components seem designed more to bolster Vercel’s business model than to serve developers’ needs.
Next.js is fundamentally a full stack framework. Developers must grapple with backend concepts that complicate what should be a straightforward frontend experience. As if frontend wasn't complex enough on it's own... And that's coming from a full stack developer.

If you really want/need a full stack framework there are plethora of choices in Node.js and other languages. And you can add all of react's idiosyncrasies to any of them (please don't). In fact you could've done that 20 years ago. Yes, SSR existed likely before you were born. SSR was never the issue...

7. Popularity, Job Market, and Developer Sentiment

React might still be popular by numbers, but surveys like the (State of JS)[https://2024.stateofjs.com/en-US/libraries/#tools_arrows] reveal growing dissatisfaction among developers. Sure, most job listings demand familiarity with a modern framework—but they rarely specify React. Employers are more interested in core web skills, critical thinking, and teamwork. Remember jQuery in the early 2010s? React risks becoming the next relic as developers flock to frameworks that promise a less convoluted future. For your next job, ask yourself "Would you rather work with a tech stack with great DevEx that will likely be more popular in the future or play the wack-a-mole game with a dying one?"

8. Enterprise-Grade Challenges: Performance, Memory, and Complexity

For large-scale, enterprise applications, React’s shortcomings are more than academic:

Performance and Memory Issues: Constant re-renders, bloated code, and the necessity for hacks can lead to sluggish, memory-intensive apps.
Optimization Overload: Developers spend more time applying and maintaining workarounds than building features.
Developer Frustration: The rules and patterns of React—meant to enforce order—often result in a labyrinth of hacks and workarounds that bog down code reviews and maintenance. In the end, you get performance that’s, at best, mediocre compared to modern alternatives.

React Native: The Lone Strong Point? Not So Fast…

React Native has long been touted as React’s saving grace for mobile development. But even here, the devil is in the details:

Separate Templates for Web and Mobile: You end up writing different code for different platforms—defeating the purpose of “cross-platform” development.
Native Expertise Required: To unlock full native performance, you must dive into Swift or Kotlin, alienating teams that hoped to stick with JavaScript.
Alternatives Exist: PWAs and frameworks like Ionic promise similar outcomes with a single codebase, often with less hassle.

A typical React Native component:

import { View, Text, TouchableOpacity } from 'react-native';

export default function MobileCounter() {
  const [count, setCount] = React.useState(0);
  return (
    <View>
      <TouchableOpacity onPress={() => setCount(c => c + 1)}>
        <Text>Count: {count}Text>
      TouchableOpacity>
    View>
  );
}

Now compare that with a PWA built entirely in web standards—it’s clear which approach minimizes friction.

10. Maintainability: A Growing Nightmare

The React ecosystem is littered with abandoned libraries and components. Documentation, while abundant, often leaves much to be desired compared to rivals like Angular or Vue. And let’s not even start on the “Rules of React”—an endless litany of do’s and don’ts that makes even the simplest code review feel like navigating a bureaucratic maze. The result? Codebases that are hard to maintain, riddled with hacks, and ultimately deliver lackluster performance.

Conclusion

If React were a car, it’d be a vintage model that once reigned supreme—now rusted, unreliable, and in desperate need of an overhaul. Its architecture, rife with performance pitfalls, convoluted paradigms, and a fragmented ecosystem, poses serious challenges for modern development, especially at an enterprise scale. With promising alternatives on the rise, clinging to React might soon become as outdated as using jQuery in 2025. The question isn’t whether you can continue with React — it’s whether you should.

Are you ready to embrace a future built on cleaner, more efficient frameworks? Or will you keep patching up a relic, one hack at a time?