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".
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).