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

React and Redux are a joke right?

games.greggman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 119 posts

Re: React and Redux are a joke right?

#21

Post by mariusandra »

joncampbelldev wrote: post #19
gorm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immutable.js is just another complication with another 60k size penalty with a few new negative drawbacks that he would need more complexity to solve. Author is already arguing against this approach.

60k is hardly an issue, most hi-res images would be larger than that. Plus due to the google closure compiler code can be minified with an aggression unknown to the typical js minifiers. Add to that tree-shaking (removing unused code) and the long term size of your app is looking good. I find clojurescript and specifically figwheel reduces language annoyanes and tooling problems. No more do i have to jump through hoo…

60k is a big issue if your users are on older smartphones. I'm tired of people equating the time it takes to download an image in the background with the render blocking cpu-crunching parsing that javascript requires.

Re: React and Redux are a joke right?

#22

Post by littlecranky67 »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #7
allover wrote: post #3

Stopped reading half-way through, as lots of incorrect stuff off the bat. > In the react world though you can’t mutate your data Sure you can. > If you get 3 people react will end up re-rendering 3 times because of the code above. Each call to `setState` triggers a re-render. Nope, calls to setState are batched.

I think sometimes you need an outsider view to call out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and that's going to result in botched details. I don't think it impacts the overall point the author is trying to make. I teach web development at a part-time course, and we recently redesigned our curriculum to use React + Node instead of Rails with JQuery. With the new technologies, the students are profoundly less p…

Then why don't you stick with Rails and jQuery? Modern frameworks like react (or even SPA alltogether) evolved for certain types of web applications (read that again: web applications, not websites). If your web application has requirements like offline funtionality (think mobile appstore deployment), very nice UI (think animations) or responsive UI (in terms of response times to clicks, drags etc.), you would not get far with Rails, or end up with a mixed backend/frontend code soup for HTML rendering and DOM manipulation.

Another aspect is enterprise grade websites, where jQuery just does not scale as well or will make your code end up in an unmaintainable state. "Get beginners going fast" is a nice feature, but sometimes its more favorable to have "scales for teams with >10 developers".

If you are making a simple website, blog or whatever, please do not use SPA but stick with the server-side frameworks we had for years.

Re: React and Redux are a joke right?

#23

Post by eknkc »

gorm wrote: post #5
joncampbelldev wrote: post #2

If the author wishes to continue with js/react/redux then he needs to pick up a library like immutable.js to cut down that immutabiilty helper crap. However, there is a better way ... lein new figwheel my-app, clojurescript+reframe gives you all the benefits of redux with an order of magnitude less boilerplate (also hot reloading and immutability by default without no extra setup or ceremony)

Immutable.js is just another complication with another 60k size penalty with a few new negative drawbacks that he would need more complexity to solve. Author is already arguing against this approach.

https://github.com/rtfeldman/seamless-immutable is easier to use with 7kb minified size.

Re: React and Redux are a joke right?

#24

Post by boubiyeah »

allover wrote: post #3

Stopped reading half-way through, as lots of incorrect stuff off the bat. > In the react world though you can’t mutate your data Sure you can. > If you get 3 people react will end up re-rendering 3 times because of the code above. Each call to `setState` triggers a re-render. Nope, calls to setState are batched.

They're not always batched. They're only batched within the context of an Event listener. A fairly odd distinction made necessary because React rendering was made synchronous initially but I guess it works for most apps.

Re: React and Redux are a joke right?

#25

Post by ryanbrunner »

vim_wannabe wrote: post #18
ryanbrunner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think sometimes you need an outsider view to call out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and that's going to result in botched details. I don't think it impacts the overall point the author is trying to make. I teach web development at a part-time course, and we recently redesigned our curriculum to use React + Node instead of Rails with JQuery. With the new technologies, the students are profoundly less p…

One problem is people reach out to client-side code earlier than they should. 90% of websites have no need for Javascript. Of those that do 90% won't be needing any "take over the world" frameworks, just little sprinkles of Javascript or jQuery. Not to mention most required uses of Javascript are interaction related. At least let me read the landing page without having me enable javascript instead of greeting me with…

I agree. I think 90% of the "problem" with React or Redux is that people espouse using "the right tool for the job", but almost never practice it when the right tool is unsexy.

Re: React and Redux are a joke right?

#26

Post by [deleted] »

boubiyeah wrote: post #24
allover wrote: post #3

Stopped reading half-way through, as lots of incorrect stuff off the bat. > In the react world though you can’t mutate your data Sure you can. > If you get 3 people react will end up re-rendering 3 times because of the code above. Each call to `setState` triggers a re-render. Nope, calls to setState are batched.

They're not always batched. They're only batched within the context of an Event listener. A fairly odd distinction made necessary because React rendering was made synchronous initially but I guess it works for most apps.

[deleted]

Re: React and Redux are a joke right?

#27

Post by Tade0 »

I think the author may like to consider Vue.js + Vuex. In Vuex in particular the first argument of each mutation is the store state, which you can mutate how you wish and the framework takes care of the rest.

Re: React and Redux are a joke right?

#29

Post by ryanbrunner »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #22
ryanbrunner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think sometimes you need an outsider view to call out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and that's going to result in botched details. I don't think it impacts the overall point the author is trying to make. I teach web development at a part-time course, and we recently redesigned our curriculum to use React + Node instead of Rails with JQuery. With the new technologies, the students are profoundly less p…

Then why don't you stick with Rails and jQuery? Modern frameworks like react (or even SPA alltogether) evolved for certain types of web applications (read that again: web applications, not websites). If your web application has requirements like offline funtionality (think mobile appstore deployment), very nice UI (think animations) or responsive UI (in terms of response times to clicks, drags etc.), you would not ge…

I agree that there's web applications that aren't going to be feasible with a server-generated HTML stack. Anyone trying to build Spotify or Google Docs without Javascript driving the show is in for a bad time. But 90% of the "applications" I use (read: not blogs but your average SaaS app) don't require that level of complexity.

Re: React and Redux are a joke right?

#30

Post by crispyambulance »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #7
allover wrote: post #3

Stopped reading half-way through, as lots of incorrect stuff off the bat. > In the react world though you can’t mutate your data Sure you can. > If you get 3 people react will end up re-rendering 3 times because of the code above. Each call to `setState` triggers a re-render. Nope, calls to setState are batched.

I think sometimes you need an outsider view to call out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and that's going to result in botched details. I don't think it impacts the overall point the author is trying to make. I teach web development at a part-time course, and we recently redesigned our curriculum to use React + Node instead of Rails with JQuery. With the new technologies, the students are profoundly less p…

It makes me wonder what it is that actually makes a framework "take off".

Clearly it is not ease of use nor cogency of the code one needs to write, nor even how well the developer can express their intent.

I sometimes suspect that all this churn and complexity in the latest frameworks is some kind of unintentional group-think that optimizes for job-security by making work much more difficult than it really needs to be.

Post reply on HN