JSX, Babel and Webpack: The Magic Behind ReactJS

JSX, Babel and Webpack: The Magic Behind ReactJS

Creating an app in React is a true pleasure, especially coming from programming interactive apps in vanilla JavaScript. React utilizes an object oriented design pattern, with a couple of core concepts that are unique: first, there are <em>components</em>. A component in React is a class which represents an element (or set of elements) in the DOM, which have properties (or <em>props</em>) and can also carry <em>state</em>. State in a React component is reserved for properties that may change over time: the text input on a form, for example, or a button which toggles text displayed to the user. Components are typically separated into discrete files, following the convention <code>ComponentName.js</code>.

Creating an app in React is a true pleasure, especially coming from programming interactive apps in vanilla JavaScript. React utilizes an object oriented design pattern, with a couple of core concepts that are unique: first, there are components. A component in React is a class which represents an element (or set of elements) in the DOM, which have properties (or props) and can also carry state. State in a React component is reserved for properties that may change over time: the text input on a form, for example, or a button which toggles text displayed to the user. Components are typically separated into discrete files, following the convention ComponentName.js.

The second feature which is distinct to React is JSX. JSX — or JavaScript XML — is a syntax extension to standard JavaScript which allows us to incorporate XML-like syntax into our code. For example, with JSX we are allowed to write the following:

const greeting = <h1>Hello, World!</h1>

This is where things start to get interesting. If you are familiar with HTML, the above should look familiar. With standard JavaScript, however, something like the following would be required to achieve the same result:

const greeting = document.createElement("h1");
greeting.innerText = "Hello, World!";

How exactly does this work and why is it legal? As it turns out, JSX is actually transpiled into standard JavaScript behind the scenes. React uses a preprocessor called Babel to translate our code before it is rendered in the browser. If we head over to the Babel REPL, we can see exactly how our code will be converted:

const greeting = React.createElement("h1", null, "Hello, World!");

This should look familiar! The main difference here is that React uses its own copy of the DOM — the virtual DOM — in order to dynamically handle component loading and unloading (or mounting, in React terminology.)

So, how does React incorporate Babel? This is where Webpack comes in. Webpack is a package bundler for JavaScript that compiles modules into a single source, which is then rendered in the browser. As of ES6, JavaScript introduced the import and export keywords, allowing us to separate out our code into discrete modules and include dependencies. Remember the mention of components being split up into separate files? Webpack first determines the file hierarchy for the project and generates a dependency graph. From the dependency graph it compiles the code to a single source, using Babel to translate and remove the import and export statements, and convert JSX into standard JavaScript.

Let’s create a simple React app to tie all of these concepts together. In your terminal, navigate to your root development directory. Then type:

npx create-react-app my-app

The create-react-app tool does a few things for us, including running npm init and installing Babel and Webpack with some configuration scripts. Let’s move into our new project directory and remove all of the generated source files (as we will create our own from scratch):

cd my-app && rm src/*
touch src/index.js

We will next create a simple app to display and update a greeting as the user types input. Add the following to src/index.js:

import React, { Component, Fragment } from "react";
import ReactDOM from "react-dom";

class App extends Component {
  constructor() {
    super();
    this.state = {
      name: ""
    };
  }

  render() {
    return (
      <Fragment>
        <h1>Hello {this.state.name}</h1>
        <input
          type="text"
          placeholder="Type your name..."
          onChange={e => this.setState({ name: e.target.value })}
        />
      </Fragment>
    );
  }
}

ReactDOM.render(<App />, document.getElementById("root"));

Run yarn start in the terminal, and you should see a header with a text input right below it rendered in the browser. If you copy and paste the code above into the Babel REPL, you can see how the code will be transpiled to vanilla JavaScript. Ok, so now what?

If we poke around in the file structure that create-react-app generated we will notice a file called package.json. This file is responsible for defining project dependencies and scripts such as start and build. Let’s go a level deeper. Type the following into the terminal:

git add .
git commit -m "initial commit"
yarn eject

When prompted, type y to complete the process. What did this do? Well, if we look at our directory structure, we will notice two new folders have been created: config and scripts. By running the eject command, we are removing our dependency on the magic of the create-react-app tool and getting a look under the hood at what’s really happening. Taking a look at package.json now, we can see that there are now many more dependencies listed than before, including Babel and Webpack. Under the config folder that was generated, we also see webpack.config.js and webpackDevServer.config.js. Take a few minutes to peek into these files and try to comprehend what they are doing.

Tying It All Together

React is an amazing framework for quickly creating stunning dynamic web apps, with a lot going on under the hood. JSX is an extension to JavaScript which allows us to write XML-like syntax to define DOM elements, which are translated by Babel into vanilla JS. Webpack is responsible for bundling all of our components together and running a local development server to test our code in the browser. I hope that this article has helped to demystify the magic of React, and bring about a deeper level of understanding.

Go here to view the code presented in this post.

Thanks for reading ❤

If you liked this post, share it with all of your programming buddies!

JavaScript developers should you be using Web Workers?

JavaScript developers should you be using Web Workers?

Do you think JavaScript developers should be making more use of Web Workers to shift execution off of the main thread?

Originally published by David Gilbertson at https://medium.com

So, Web Workers. Those wonderful little critters that allow us to execute JavaScript off the main thread.

Also known as “no, you’re thinking of Service Workers”.

Photo by Caleb Jones on Unsplash

Before I get into the meat of the article, please sit for a lesson in how computers work:

Understood? Good.

For the red/green colourblind, let me explain. While a CPU is doing one thing, it can’t be doing another thing, which means you can’t sort a big array while a user scrolls the screen.

This is bad, if you have a big array and users with fingers.

Enter, Web Workers. These split open the atomic concept of a ‘CPU’ and allow us to think in terms of threads. We can use one thread to handle user-facing work like touch events and rendering the UI, and different threads to carry out all other work.

Check that out, the main thread is green the whole way through, ready to receive and respond to the gentle caress of a user.

You’re excited (I can tell), if we only have UI code on the main thread and all other code can go in a worker, things are going to be amazing (said the way Oprah would say it).

But cool your jets for just a moment, because websites are mostly about the UI — it’s why we have screens. And a lot of a user’s interactions with your site will be tapping on the screen, waiting for a response, reading, tapping, looking, reading, and so on.

So we can’t just say “here’s some JS that takes 20ms to run, chuck it on a thread”, we must think about where that execution time exists in the user’s world of tap, read, look, read, tap…

I like to boil this down to one specific question:

Is the user waiting anyway?

Imagine we have created some sort of git-repository-hosting website that shows all sorts of things about a repository. We have a cool feature called ‘issues’. A user can even click an ‘issues’ tab in our website to see a list of all issues relating to the repository. Groundbreaking!

When our users click this issues tab, the site is going to fetch the issue data, process it in some way — perhaps sort, or format dates, or work out which icon to show — then render the UI.

Inside the user’s computer, that’ll look exactly like this.

Look at that processing stage, locking up the main thread even though it has nothing to do with the UI! That’s terrible, in theory.

But think about what the human is actually doing at this point. They’re waiting for the common trio of network/process/render; just sittin’ around with less to do than the Bolivian Navy.

Because we care about our users, we show a loading indicator to let them know we’ve received their request and are working on it — putting the human in a ‘waiting’ state. Let’s add that to the diagram.

Now that we have a human in the picture, we can mix in a Web Worker and think about the impact it will have on their life:

Hmmm.

First thing to note is that we’re not doing anything in parallel. We need the data from the network before we process it, and we need to process the data before we can render the UI. The elapsed time doesn’t change.

(BTW, the time involved in moving data to a Web Worker and back is negligible: 1ms per 100 KB is a decent rule of thumb.)

So we can move work off the main thread and have a page that is responsive during that time, but to what end? If our user is sitting there looking at a spinner for 600ms, have we enriched their experience by having a responsive screen for the middle third?

No.

I’ve fudged these diagrams a little bit to make them the gorgeous specimens of graphic design that they are, but they’re not really to scale.

When responding to a user request, you’ll find that the network and DOM-manipulating part of any given task take much, much longer than the pure-JS data processing part.

I saw an article recently making the case that updating a Redux store was a good candidate for Web Workers because it’s not UI work (and non-UI work doesn’t belong on the main thread).

Chucking the data processing over to a worker thread sounds sensible, but the idea struck me as a little, umm, academic.

First, let’s split instances of ‘updating a store’ into two categories:

  1. Updating a store in response to a user interaction, then updating the UI in response to the data change
  2. Not that first one

If the first scenario, a user taps a button on the screen — perhaps to change the sort order of a list. The store updates, and this results in a re-rendering of the DOM (since that’s the point of a store).

Let me just delete one thing from the previous diagram:

In my experience, it is rare that the store-updating step goes beyond a few dozen milliseconds, and is generally followed by ten times that in DOM updating, layout, and paint. If I’ve got a site that’s taking longer than this, I’d be asking questions about why I have so much data in the browser and so much DOM, rather than on which thread I should do my processing.

So the question we’re faced with is the same one from above: the user tapped something on the screen, we’re going to work on that request for hopefully less than a second, why would we want to make the screen responsive during that time?

OK what about the second scenario, where a store update isn’t in response to a user interaction? Performing an auto-save, for example — there’s nothing more annoying than an app becoming unresponsive doing something you didn’t ask it to do.

Actually there’s heaps of things more annoying than that. Teens, for example.

Anyhoo, if you’re doing an auto-save and taking 100ms to process data client-side before sending it off to a server, then you should absolutely use a Web Worker.

In fact, any ‘background’ task that the user hasn’t asked for, or isn’t waiting for, is a good candidate for moving to a Web Worker.

The matter of value

Complexity is expensive, and implementing Web Workers ain’t cheap.

If you’re using a bundler — and you are — you’ll have a lot of reading to do, and probably npm packages to install. If you’ve got a create-react-app app, prepare to eject (and put aside two days twice a year to update 30 different packages when the next version of Babel/Redux/React/ESLint comes out).

Also, if you want to share anything fancier than plain data between a worker and the main thread you’ve got some more reading to do (comlink is your friend).

What I’m getting at is this: if the benefit is real, but minimal, then you’ve gotta ask if there’s something else you could spend a day or two on with a greater benefit to your users.

This thinking is true of everything, of course, but I’ve found that Web Workers have a particularly poor benefit-to-effort ratio.

Hey David, why you hate Web Workers so bad?

Good question.

This is a doweling jig:

I own a doweling jig. I love my doweling jig. If I need to drill a hole into the end of a piece of wood and ensure that it’s perfectly perpendicular to the surface, I use my doweling jig.

But I don’t use it to eat breakfast. For that I use a spoon.

Four years ago I was working on some fancy animations. They looked slick on a fast device, but janky on a slow one. So I wrote fireball-js, which executes a rudimentary performance benchmark on the user’s device and returns a score, allowing me to run my animations only on devices that would render them smoothly.

Where’s the best spot to run some CPU intensive code that the user didn’t request? On a different thread, of course. A Web Worker was the correct tool for the job.

Fast forward to 2019 and you’ll find me writing a routing algorithm for a mapping application. This requires parsing a big fat GeoJSON map into a collection of nodes and edges, to be used when a user asks for directions. The processing isn’t in response to a user request and the user isn’t waiting on it. And so, a Web Worker is the correct tool for the job.

It was only when doing this that it dawned on me: in the intervening quartet of years, I have seen exactly zero other instances where Web Workers would have improved the user experience.

Contrast this with a recent resurgence in Web Worker wonderment, and combine that contrast with the fact that I couldn’t think of anything else to write about, then concatenate that combined contrast with my contrarian character and you’ve got yourself a blog post telling you that maybe Web Workers are a teeny-tiny bit overhyped.

Thanks for reading

If you liked this post, share it with all of your programming buddies!

Follow us on Facebook | Twitter

Further reading

An Introduction to Web Workers

JavaScript Web Workers: A Beginner’s Guide

Using Web Workers to Real-time Processing

How to use Web Workers in Angular app

Using Web Workers with Angular CLI