Instead they'll write element attribute monstrosities. We've been here at least twice in history already.

I like to use these things so I don't have to use JS for business and server-side logic, so I don't have to replicate certain things on both ends, and so I don't have to write myself a web API just so two applications I control can talk to each other. I have no problem writing JS for more complex UI stuff which is what I originally learned JS to do, and I enjoy it (though I enjoy the outcome more than the language). I know I'm not the only one who feels this way but I'm probably a minority.in

My point is that in terms of complexity and amount to learn, I bet Phoenix would be equal to React. Regardless of other reasons for choosing either.

Therefore "Just use Phoenix". It's like saying manual transmission cars suck, just learn to fly a plane.

More specifically they want to use one language for the front and back end

~60 pages on a 1920/1080 monitor, and looks to first example, with stuff like this.

    Finally the forth function render/1 receives the assigns argument which contains the :val state and renders the template using the @val template variable.

    The render/1 function renders the template included in the function. The ~H""" syntax just means "treat this multiline string as a LiveView template" The ~H sigil is a macro included when the use Phoenix.LiveView is invoked at the top of the file.

The resource looks excellent, but I think it demonstrates that this is more complex than the equivalent Rails.

Which is not even a criticism of Phoenix - it obviously has a lot of power, and "scales right up TM". But I wouldn't think it was a "just do this" kind of a thing.