Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why We Should Ditch React [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Why We Should Ditch React [video]

#21

Post by notus »

guitarbill wrote: post #18
baron816 wrote: post #3

Summary: this guy doesn’t like hooks because he doesn’t like learning new stuff and he wants to throw out React because it changed a little bit. Doesn’t mention the benefits of framework changes or rationale behind them. Definitely garbage YouTube click bait here. Don’t bother.

He does have a point that churn/the new hotness is a real issue, and the latest hotness in JS library/framework have a very short shelf-life. On the other hand, projects like Babel or Polymer, that want to be obsolete at some point, but will require minimal re-writing when that happens are excellent and future-proof.

There is a far less framework churn now than there was 10 years ago. React, Angular, and Vue have all been around for a long time now relative to previous JS frameworks. React makes a lot of changes but they are, on average, improvements. Not all of them are the best decisions and some are temporary band aids to support new features, but the constant iteration in response to changing expectations for web is one of it's strengths IMO.

Re: Why We Should Ditch React [video]

#22

Post by striking »

baron816 wrote: post #3

Summary: this guy doesn’t like hooks because he doesn’t like learning new stuff and he wants to throw out React because it changed a little bit. Doesn’t mention the benefits of framework changes or rationale behind them. Definitely garbage YouTube click bait here. Don’t bother.

It's not like React.Component is gone, either. Still there. I think it's still the only way to make an error boundary component, too.

Re: Why We Should Ditch React [video]

#23

Post by baron816 »

guitarbill wrote: post #18
baron816 wrote: post #3

Summary: this guy doesn’t like hooks because he doesn’t like learning new stuff and he wants to throw out React because it changed a little bit. Doesn’t mention the benefits of framework changes or rationale behind them. Definitely garbage YouTube click bait here. Don’t bother.

He does have a point that churn/the new hotness is a real issue, and the latest hotness in JS library/framework have a very short shelf-life. On the other hand, projects like Babel or Polymer, that want to be obsolete at some point, but will require minimal re-writing when that happens are excellent and future-proof.

Definitely not a novel point. Nor particularly accurate anymore as other commentators have pointed out.

Re: Why We Should Ditch React [video]

#24

Post by viklove »

baron816 wrote: post #3

Summary: this guy doesn’t like hooks because he doesn’t like learning new stuff and he wants to throw out React because it changed a little bit. Doesn’t mention the benefits of framework changes or rationale behind them. Definitely garbage YouTube click bait here. Don’t bother.

To be fair hooks are kind of a frivolous feature that add no new functionality (just another way to do something we already could). It does irk me a bit when library maintainers do stuff like this because it just introduces more complexity and more patterns into a framework that people feel the need to tap into. Smart devs will just opt not to use hooks, but it sucks that the industry will likely adopt it for no reason other than keeping up with the latest trends.

React peaked at v16.

Re: Why We Should Ditch React [video]

#25

Post by viklove »

nobleach wrote: post #16

The comments are a bit disconcerting. "Redux is trash"? It's a finite state machine. At its simplest level that's all it is. Now, I get that requiring it in every single React app makes little sense, but the library itself is just too simple to be considered "trash".

It's trash because people are dumb and it encourages them to store all of their state globally.

Re: Why We Should Ditch React [video]

#26

Post by guitarbill »

notus wrote: post #21
guitarbill wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does have a point that churn/the new hotness is a real issue, and the latest hotness in JS library/framework have a very short shelf-life. On the other hand, projects like Babel or Polymer, that want to be obsolete at some point, but will require minimal re-writing when that happens are excellent and future-proof.

There is a far less framework churn now than there was 10 years ago. React, Angular, and Vue have all been around for a long time now relative to previous JS frameworks. React makes a lot of changes but they are, on average, improvements. Not all of them are the best decisions and some are temporary band aids to support new features, but the constant iteration in response to changing expectations for web is one of it…

Angular 1 or 2? Cause the latter seems to be 3 years old. Okay, facile argument, the others are 5-6 years old from a quick search.

> React makes a lot of changes [...] the constant iteration in response to changing expectations for web

maybe it's ironic we're having that discussion on HN, and i'm struggling to remember sites that have gotten better lately, not worse. then again, that's probably because of the bias to remember negative experiences

Re: Why We Should Ditch React [video]

#27

Post by baron816 »

viklove wrote: post #24
baron816 wrote: post #3

Summary: this guy doesn’t like hooks because he doesn’t like learning new stuff and he wants to throw out React because it changed a little bit. Doesn’t mention the benefits of framework changes or rationale behind them. Definitely garbage YouTube click bait here. Don’t bother.

To be fair hooks are kind of a frivolous feature that add no new functionality (just another way to do something we already could). It does irk me a bit when library maintainers do stuff like this because it just introduces more complexity and more patterns into a framework that people feel the need to tap into. Smart devs will just opt not to use hooks, but it sucks that the industry will likely adopt it for no reas…

> Smart devs will just opt not to use hooks

Couldn’t disagree with you more here. Smart devs use smart abstractions. Hooks is a smart abstraction because 1) classes and inheritance don’t belong in JS, 2) they allow for more code reuse, 3) they allow you to write simpler, more declarative code.

Re: Why We Should Ditch React [video]

#28

Post by nobleach »

viklove wrote: post #25
nobleach wrote: post #16

The comments are a bit disconcerting. "Redux is trash"? It's a finite state machine. At its simplest level that's all it is. Now, I get that requiring it in every single React app makes little sense, but the library itself is just too simple to be considered "trash".

It's trash because people are dumb and it encourages them to store all of their state globally.

I'm pretty sure that is discouraged by the docs and the author. Just because a library doesn't pop up a bouncing anthropomorphic paperclip and specifically ASK you, "are you sure you want to store this state globally?", doesn't mean the library is bad. Just think of the brain-dead things the C language allows you to do with malloc! Yet that's not at all C's fault.

Re: Why We Should Ditch React [video]

#29

Post by viklove »

baron816 wrote: post #27
viklove wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair hooks are kind of a frivolous feature that add no new functionality (just another way to do something we already could). It does irk me a bit when library maintainers do stuff like this because it just introduces more complexity and more patterns into a framework that people feel the need to tap into. Smart devs will just opt not to use hooks, but it sucks that the industry will likely adopt it for no reas…

> Smart devs will just opt not to use hooks Couldn’t disagree with you more here. Smart devs use smart abstractions. Hooks is a smart abstraction because 1) classes and inheritance don’t belong in JS, 2) they allow for more code reuse, 3) they allow you to write simpler, more declarative code.

> 1) classes and inheritance don’t belong in JS

You gonna back this claim up? Because it doesn't stand on its own. Inheritance certainly doesn't gel with _React_ (use composition), but to say it doesn't belong in JS is rather naive.

> 2) they allow for more code reuse

You can already get just as much reuse out of React's context API

> 3) they allow you to write simpler, more declarative code.

This is rather subjective, but I'd argue it's not simpler, because it "hides" the state with internal magic, and it's not even more declarative because using a context (or composition) based approach would be just as declarative.

I'd actually argue it's far more complex, because each invocation of `useEffect` doesn't even have the same result! There's some behind-the-scenes magic going on that makes it harder to reason about and find bugs.

The nice thing about having classes is that it's very easy to understand what code runs when a component is initialized (constructor and componentDidMount) versus what code is run on each render cycle (the render method). Hooks just removes that whole distinction and throws everything into one place. Devs who are new to React will definitely struggle with understanding what is going on behind the scenes.

Re: Why We Should Ditch React [video]

#30

Post by viklove »

nobleach wrote: post #28
viklove wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's trash because people are dumb and it encourages them to store all of their state globally.

I'm pretty sure that is discouraged by the docs and the author. Just because a library doesn't pop up a bouncing anthropomorphic paperclip and specifically ASK you, "are you sure you want to store this state globally?", doesn't mean the library is bad. Just think of the brain-dead things the C language allows you to do with malloc! Yet that's not at all C's fault.

It might not be Redux's fault, but the result of Redux being a popular library is that many projects have all of their state stored globally. This would not be the case if Redux didn't exist. Call me consequentialist, but I think Redux has to share some of the blame.
Post reply on HN