New marketing copy

[petehunt]

I think that our 3 bullet points are pretty meaningless right now since they don't differentiate React from alternatives. Even if we are more declarative and more efficient and more flexible it says nothing about how we're different.

So I changed these. The goal is for someone to read these and instantly be able to differentiate React from alternatives.

[sophiebits]

Maybe we should specifically use the phrase "server-side rendering" here?

[petehunt]

It can also render on the server using Node.js.

?

[krsmedlund]

there is a typo in the text at <i>virtual DOM</li>

[petehunt]

ping

[vjeux]

@vjeux approved

[sophiebits]

But it's the only one that emphasizes building components out of other components above all else.

This sounds to me like we're sacrificing other things to make components easier (which I don't think is true?). Maybe:

But with a focus on composability, React makes it simple to keep each part of your app self-contained.

(also rsquo not apos?)

[petehunt]

Really struggling with this. tbh, I liked the old one better but it was really aggressive. Any ideas?

[sophiebits]

Well, I think it's okay to be super aggressive in claims like this if it's true… but I'm not sure that the advantage you claim is even concrete enough to understand. What do you think of:

"By making it easy to compose components, React let you to make your views more modular, making them easier to maintain."

[petehunt]

I'm trying to draw a distinction between techniques like Angular's transclusion which requires massging your data into and out of the DOM to use composition and react-style composition.

[sophiebits]

Yeah, I know what you mean but I don't think it'll be as obvious to most visitors.