> The article is about the create-react-app (CRA) script.
Well that’s not true, either. It’s seems to be about how CRA doesn’t offer options for deployment and you offering those options
Which it shouldn’t, because:
> But it stops at a certain point: when it comes to deployment.
Because CRA, and REACT.js. is not meant to deal with deployment! It makes no such claims.
> React is more than CRA. I did not claim to provide all the facts of CRA and React.
No it’s not! React is NOT more than CRA. React.js is a VIEW library. VIEW. As in, the stuff you see. That’s IT. You show a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of react as a library.
It’s meant to be isolated, minimal, and leave it up to you, the developer, how you deal with everything else: delpoyment, routing, hosting, etc.
Replace ``CRA`` with ``Vue.js`` or even ``angular`` in this article and it would make NO DIFFERENCE.
> The message of the article is what you implicitly said: CRA is no panacea solution
And it’s not meant to be! So your message is a tautology? Or a lie? Or pointless?
> The article is opinionated. The article represents my personal view.
Well, clearly it doesn’t. Subtle, but not subtle enough, it seems to be a content-marketing piece for ‘Infrastructure components’ tortuously obfuscated via some logical jumps to create react app in an effort to boost its SEO potential.
Well done on that achievement, though. For that purpose, it did succeed! It did appear in my Medium suggested articles.
