> So JSX is pure Javascript and not, say, a dialect of XML embedded in JS?

It would be best to think of it as syntax sugar for create Element() function calls. You enter JSX with angle tags and insert expressions in braces

> React is full of magic syntax that looks like functions, but e.g. you can't call them inside an if statement, or you have to redundantly declare the 'dependencies' (variables you read) and so on

That's not magic syntax. That's just functions that must be processed in regular order between render ticks.

It's not a difficult exercise to write a "plain JS" function that works that way. If you've worked much with closures you can visualise how that would play out.

> That's why there is such a thing as a React compiler - a good sign that you're not writing JS, which doesn't have compilers.

You say that like it's a bad thing - but it didn't stop Babel or TypeScript from being popular, both of which need a compiler. And being honest, I don't like extra tools in my chain, which is probably why I don't use React proper, but that proves you don't need anything React specific for anything other than optimisation

The only syntax you really want for React is JSX. Which is just because writing React.createElement("div" ...) every time is unergomomic. JSX isn't specific to React. It could easily be a language feature, in fact it is an OOTB language feature of TypeScript.

> React is full of magic syntax that looks like functions, but e.g. you can't call them inside an if statement

They look like function calls, because they are. They're not "magic syntax", and in fact, those rules are explicitly because theres no way around that without implementing special syntax

JSX isn't and hasn't even been necessary to use React. The first version of my company's site didn't have a build step and called createElement manually.

And in the decade I've been writing for React, I've never used the React compiler. But saying that it's proof that it's not JavaScript it's like saying that V8 is proof that JavaScript is too complicated because otherwise it would be fast enough not to need a JIT.

And all those rules? You don't have to follow them either. Use class components. They're still there, and they work fine.

> So JSX is pure Javascript and not, say, a dialect of XML embedded in JS?

This is actually the selling point to me. As someone who started learning pure HTML, JSX just makes a lot of sense to me intuitively. It feels like intelligent HTML

JSX is just a syntax extension to JS, and it's not even required to create a React app.

React "compiler" is in fact a transpiler, which is a very common thing in JS.

>React is full of magic syntax that looks like functions

Full of magic syntax meaning 5 straightforward hooks? Surely they are not true free-form JavaScript, but at least the syntax itself is not turned into a DSL

>The semantics of React code are very different to imperative straight line code.

Yes and all you have to do is learn why those semantics exist in order to do react well.

Unfortunately too many programmers still think they can just mimic other code to figure it out.

JSX is how someone who knows only HTML and no programming languages would go about writing some Javascript. Which is a good thing IMO.

I can’t recall a single time where I would want to put JSX in an „if” statement.. In fact I can’t recall a single time where I would want to use JSX in a different context than the return value of a render phase.

So from my personal experience the things you mentioned are non-issues in practice. Do you have a different experience?

Everything has compilers now and we definitely want to go that direction. The no build people aren’t close to building any popular consensus, like not close at all. Even plain JS is compile heavy because browsers are just compile targets.

um....react is literally js and its not a language, you can write react with or without jsx which is just syntax sugar to make it look more like html.