I might be missing something (after reading the article twice) but the author says nothing about why he doesn't use React Router...
The only mention I can find is "But the API smelled funny to me, and had not settled, so I continued to wait" that hints that the API is changing and looks weird. But other than that, there is no constructive criticism here.
I'm all for being able to write freely about software we find bad, but without any concrete examples or even pointers to what is bad, I don't think this article have any merit (except that it's good to make sure you understand the dependencies you have).
It looked like a risky dependency, simple as that. Despite the HN title, the point of the article was not to talk about React Router.
EDIT: Additionally, I'm not saying React Router is bad per se, just that it's not fully baked. I'm glad to see people working on the problem. I look forward to leveraging the fruits of their labor in the future (in fact, I already do - I use the history library on which RR is built).
I still feel that you're not giving reasons of why it's a risky dependency or fully baked. And probably we/you should rename the title if it doesn't convey the article body...
Not that I am defending or even using React Router myself, I'm just saying that it's usually better for everyone if the feedback is better explained than just "It's bad" or "It's risky to use".
The only mention I can find is "But the API smelled funny to me, and had not settled, so I continued to wait" that hints that the API is changing and looks weird. But other than that, there is no constructive criticism here.
I'm all for being able to write freely about software we find bad, but without any concrete examples or even pointers to what is bad, I don't think this article have any merit (except that it's good to make sure you understand the dependencies you have).