zlacker

>>rayhaa+(OP)
till this day, I don't know the substantial benefits of React Server Components over say classically rendered html pages + using htmx ?

mind you react in 2017 paid my rent. now cz of the complexity I refuse to work with react.

>>dzonga+Er
They lend you optionality of when and where you want your code to run. Plus it enables you to define the server/client network boundary where you see fit and cross that boundary seamlessly.

It's totally fine to say you don't understand why they have benefits, but it really irks me when people exclaim they have no value or exist just for complexity's sake. There's no system for web development that provides the developer with more grounded flexibility than RSCs. I wrote a blog post about this[0].

To answer your question, htmx solves this by leaning on the server immensely. It doesn't provide a complete client-side framework when you need it. RSCs allow both the server and the client to co-exist, simply composing between the two while maintaining the full power of each.

[0] https://saewitz.com/server-components-give-you-optionality

>>switz+TC
But is it a good idea to make it seamless when every crossing of the boundary has significant implications for security and performance? Maybe the seam should be made as simple and clear as possible instead.

>>ptx+yN
Yep! It’s really hard to reason in Next about when things happen on the server vs client. This makes it harder to make things secure.

You can create clean separation in your code to make this easier to understand but it’s not well enforced by default.