Developers often choose React not for user experience but due to inertia. Familiarity with React makes it easier to stick with, especially in workplaces that mandate its use. While this makes hiring simpler, it can lead to outdated practices. React demands resources from users’ devices since it’s a client-side framework, which can slow down performance. The promise of server-side rendering offers a potential workaround, but the reality can still burden end users with unnecessary downloads. The distinction between front-end and back-end development has blurred with JavaScript running on both sides. While React was initially celebrated for its virtual DOM and state management, many of its touted benefits have not lived up to expectations. Developers appreciate its component-based architecture and JSX, which can enhance productivity. However, treating JavaScript code the same for both front-end and back-end can lead to inefficiencies, especially on the client side. Frameworks like Next.js and Astro offer different approaches to using React. Next.js often requires sending the same JavaScript to the client that was computed on the server, which can negate performance benefits. Astro, on the other hand, minimizes client-side JavaScript while allowing developers to retain their JSX environment. The article argues that if React is purely a cultural choice within teams, it may be unnecessary for users to download it. Instead, developers should explore vanilla JavaScript for the front end, leveraging the capabilities of modern browsers without the overhead of React.