getting-started.md jsx --watch doesn't work

[amitmtrn]

The cli command jsx --watch src/ build/ doesn't work in windows.

after digging for a while i've found:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/22739672/react-jsx-watch-does-nothing-after-first-conversion

tried:

jsx --watch -x jsx src/ build/

and everything works fine now.
Is it doc problem or I miss something in the cli?

I'm running on:

• windows 7
• node v0.10.33
• npm 1.4.28
• react-tools 0.13.3

[jimfb]

Do your files have a .jsx suffix or a .js suffix? The command in the docs (getting-started.md) correctly states that it will translate the .js file. It says nothing about .jsx files. Am I correct in assuming that's the problem?

[amitmtrn]

@jimfb that's right, didn't notice the suffix in the example (problem solved) but,
why is the default suffix is .js? if I write html inside the .js it's not a valid javascript file.
I think that it should be changed to .jsx as default.

[jimfb]

@amitmtrn Yeah, Sebastian wrote a long rant about this somewhere. Basically, it's a side effect of the fact that using transforms is now a fairly standard thing to do in javascript. For instance, if you're using es6 classes, you have to use a transform, but that's technically part of the javascript language now. What if you're using es7 features? What if you are using speculative features that haven't reached consensus at TC39? What if you are using multiple language extensions? mycomponent.es6.jsx.flow.sweetjs.whatever? How do you decide on the order of the suffixes? It starts to become a mess. Since transformations are a part of the javascript build/deploy process nowadays, and are here to stay, the decision was made to just call everything javascript.

[jimfb]

Update: I found Sebastian's original post I was talking about: #3582 (comment) (it wasn't as long as I remembered it being)

On another note, I think the jsx command is provided by react-tools, which is being sunsetted in favor of transforms like Babel which have jsx support built in. See: facebookarchive/jstransform#81

For these reasons, I'm going to go ahead and close this issue.