Doesn't it just convert to React.createElement? I wouldn't call it absolutely huge.
JSX is one simple conversion while coffeescript or elm are entire turing-complete languages. It's like claiming a smiley face on the back of a receipt is no different from the Mona Lisa.
You can also look at JSX and know exactly how it will compile to Javascript because it's so simple. (foo && <Component {...props} />) -> (foo && React.createElement(Component, props)).
It really is just React.createElement calls. It just isn't a huge departure.
Meanwhile, what Elm compiles to is very nontrivial. The comparison only makes sense if you never actually looked at what JSX does thus mistake it for something much more complex.
Try it out yourself: https://babeljs.io/repl
If the assertion is just that `var div = document.createElement('div')` is quite similar to `var div = React.createElement('div');` then of course I agree. In this sense, JSX+React is to DOM what XAML+WinForms is to win32. I had assumed we were discussing conceptual leap between native and framework-based UI implementations.
From a UI standpoint, it would be virtually just as hard for a JSX dev to implement a React app with purely `React.createElement()` as it would be to just write a native DOM application.
