React/JSX reads better than other framework templating because
1. It's easy to differentiate the composed DOM from JS logic, since any logic is expressed in JS rather than mixed into the JSX DOM.
2. JSX maps directly to the JSDOM API.
If you know vanilla JS, JSX is a low overhead abstraction.
Except it only has a query-based cache, rather than a normalized cache by type name and ID. This means a deeply nested component running a mutation to update an entity can’t update the state of a component a few levels up purely with the response to that mutation, it instead needs to invalidate the cache and cause the parent to requery, much less performant.
An improvement might be to make milk type the first choice, and limit the cheese options based on milk type selection. Or maybe just combine both into a single selection with milk type option groups.
I feel like that's giving them too much credit; this is more of a flukuisition. Being in the right place at the right time when your acquisition target implodes.
A shame they weren’t able to adapt to modern beer tastes. As long as I can remember, I've thought of them as the mediocre beer I’ll begrudgingly drink only if all other options are exhausted.
Part of the problem is that the steam beer process they used is a cheap and nasty process by design and they were one of the last holdouts of that style. I did a tour of their brewery where they do the open air fermenting (hence the name, steam came off it). It's a way to save refrigeration costs in brewing and makes for a poor beer.
If they adapted to modern tastes they wouldn't really be steam beer anymore. They'd be another beer brewed the same way as the others. At which point you're calling non steam beer steam beer.
They were only a "holdout" insofar as they sued anyone else who used that process. They were kind of a shitty corporate citizen and I'm not sad to see them go.
No they didn't, they own the trademark term "steam beer" and only went after the people using the trademark, not people using the same process using the generic term "California Common."
The obvious follow up is I think they must not have kept up with the times
I’d guess bottles are the majority of the business and I think that product is inferior
I don’t know what the other breweries do, maybe it’s just freshness and inventory, or a better or more consistent bottling
—
I should also add that I lived in SF, so it’s definitely possible that most customers out of city think of them as a bad bottled beer brand, whereas I had a different impression
>Other breweries do cans. Easier. Cheaper. Tastes better. Keeps the art fresh.
Canning has significant upfront costs that mean that for small operations it's not easier or cheaper. At the scale of Anchor, it's viable, but does require a significant investment in retooling.
I guess Sierra Nevada was a big influence early on, and since then I’ve come to appreciate a large variety, from more hoppy offerings from the likes of Russian River, Lagunitas, Stone and recently Almanac, to lagers from Pacifico and Dos Equis, several prominent Belgian brands, and some local sours. I enjoy a wide variety, but always thought of Anchor Steam as bland, malty, and mediocre, on the same low level as Fat Tire, to name a comparable brand.
That said, I’ve only had it bottled, never on tap.
>always thought of Anchor Steam as bland, malty, and mediocre, on the same low level as Fat Tire, to name a comparable brand.
So was it bland or malty? Those seem mutually exclusive to me.
I'm generally a fan of steam beers/california commons because of the very dark malt forward flavor. It was one of my favorite beer styles to brew and drink.
