I agree that calling it "React-like" seems misleading. When I read about a 'x'-like library I expect something that could actually replace 'x' and provide nearly the same features.
Pete Hunt did a great talk on what actually makes React / virtualdom different from other databinding approaches.[1] Using this definition Riot.js looks a lot more like Angular, Ember et al. to me.
I don't think of something as React-like just because it puts HTML and JS in the same file or combines HTML tags with blocks of JS code.
The difference between React and other databinding methods is that you can use all JS language features (i.e. if, for, while, .filter(), .map(), libraries like Rx.js, etc.) when defining what you want your DOM to look like.
Suppose I want to have a list of items based on some array, which I want to filter based on some predicate, and display the items differently based on their content type.
> I don't think of something as React-like just because it puts HTML and JS in the same file or combines HTML tags with blocks of JS code.
Totally agree. While I do (most of the time) appreciate JSX, it is IMO the least interesting and relevant feature of React. It mostly just lets our company's designers continue to edit view templates that would otherwise be far beyond their training/experience. So that's nice, but it's not what makes React tick.
Pete Hunt did a great talk on what actually makes React / virtualdom different from other databinding approaches.[1] Using this definition Riot.js looks a lot more like Angular, Ember et al. to me.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DX3vJiqxm4