Every post that lists a set of tools is eventually going to be completely wrong.
1) This is the author's favorite setup in 2016. With all due respect, what is the lasting value of this information?
2) There is no "best" architecture. It depends on what problem one is solving. The author does not specify that, making their conclusions likely completely wrong in most cases. Yet, the language they use is in absolute terms.
3) 99% of JavaScript simply enhances static HTML pages. Yes, even in 2016. You probably don't even need jQuery, although it's likely to be available already.
4) It curiously evangelizes the "latest and greatest" frameworks, thus incurring in novelty bias -- new frameworks have less apparent problems because many side effects become apparent years later, once the codebase is mature.
Redux is the only "new" thing in that list, and I could code it from scratch during a hackathon. It's also essentially a javascript port of what other framework and languages have been doing since before a lot of people reading this were born.
Ironically, a lot of the comments in the article are complaining why some newer thing that just came out didn't make the list. Most of these tools are 2-3+ years old.
1) This is the author's favorite setup in 2016. With all due respect, what is the lasting value of this information?
2) There is no "best" architecture. It depends on what problem one is solving. The author does not specify that, making their conclusions likely completely wrong in most cases. Yet, the language they use is in absolute terms.
3) 99% of JavaScript simply enhances static HTML pages. Yes, even in 2016. You probably don't even need jQuery, although it's likely to be available already.
4) It curiously evangelizes the "latest and greatest" frameworks, thus incurring in novelty bias -- new frameworks have less apparent problems because many side effects become apparent years later, once the codebase is mature.