[mhink]

Author here.

Saying "why not simply observables" kinda glosses over a lot of details, but I'll try and answer as best as I can.

I've always found it a bit difficult to use Observables in application-style code, both in a conceptual sense (handling Redux actions as an observable stream) and in a practical sense (actually building and debugging streams and transformations over those streams). I do think they're excellent tools for dealing with cross-cutting concerns like logging, analytics, and debugging. But as I mentioned in the article, "business logic is inherently procedural, and expressing it as such makes our intent clearer." That's the major advantage, I think- being able to use simpler tools (e.g. loops and local variables) in a powerful new way.

And don't get me wrong, I'd love to learn RxJS properly one of these days. :) This article isn't about saying "well this approach is THE BEST APPROACH", it's more about saying "These tools turned out to be super helpful. Here's my thought process, maybe this approach will help you as well."

[k__]

Yes, this article assumes (rightfully) that people are using redux saga and need help with it.

I just found the whole concept of redux and redux-saga a bit strange. It seemed like people don't want to use observables for whatever reasons and try to push Redux to solve these async problems.

Your article is good, I just had the feeling it wouldn't be needed if people would use better suited abstractions in the first place.

[acemarke]

I'm still not sure exactly what you're trying to say there, particularly by "push Redux to solve these async problems".

Redux itself is about synchronous state updates, as inspired by the Flux Architecture. Because of that, async behavior and side effects are handled via middleware.

Most developers are not overly comfortable with FP concepts or code. Redux was intended as a lightweight intro to FP principles, and React also helps push people in that direction. Even fewer people are comfortable with observables, although Angular is maybe starting to change that somewhat. So, it's not just about "better suited abstractions", it's about what developers understand and can use well.

To be honest, your comments seem to be leaning towards the common stereotype of an FP enthusiast: "This approach is clearly superior and correct, why would people do anything else?"

[BigJono]

> Because of that, async behavior and side effects are handled via middleware.

It shouldn't be though. The middleware pattern makes a lot of sense for transforming data (communication between mismatched APIs etc), or using it in some way before passing it on (logging, analytics etc). IMO it's totally wrong for this use case though.

All redux-thunk is doing is taking some "action", clobbering it, pretending it doesn't exist, and running some arbitrary function that it's passed.

dispatch(higherOrderFunctionThatCreatesAsyncFunction())

is identical to

asyncFunction()

What people are looking for is some way to get the data store dependencies into asyncFunction in a testable way. This can easily be done without middleware.

[acemarke]

Yes, yes, we've had this argument about redux-thunk in prior threads :)

That said, it's worth noting that the explicit design goal for middleware _was_ for async behavior, per the comments from Dan and Andrew I've quoted in http://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2017/05/idiomatic-redux-tao... . To pick out one specific quote from Andrew:

> [the] reason the middleware API exists in the first place is because we explicitly did not want to prescribe a particular solution for async." My previous Flux library, Flummox, had what was essentially a promise middleware built in. It was convenient for some, but because it was built in, you couldn't change or opt-out of its behavior. With Redux, we knew that the community would come up with a multitude of better async solutions that whatever we could have built in ourselves.

> Redux Thunk is promoted in the docs because it's the absolute bare minimum solution. We were confident that the community would come up with something different and/or better. We were right!

[BigJono]

Yeah I'm under no illusions that me and Dan Abramov are operating under a vastly different model for how we think an application should be structured. The concept of a data store having a "solution for async" is, to me at least, absurd. It's like asking why my fridge doesn't have a solution for next day grocery delivery.

I don't see why my fridge needs to be concerned about whether my broccoli is sitting on the bench ready to be put in, or still being washed down at the green grocers.

From the fridge's point of view, a piece of broccoli is inserted into it at a specific point of time. The contents of the fridge can be defined as an ordered set of insertions and removals. The fridge's state depends on knowing whether a piece of broccoli was inserted at 12:58pm or 1:03pm, since that may change the order things were stacked in, but it doesn't need to know whether I placed an order for that broccoli this morning, yesterday, or a week ago; or how it arrived at my house. Making my fridge responsible for that process would seem to violate the concept of separation of concerns.

[k__]

Finally someone sane, thanks.

Funny thing is that Dan himself said Redux could be implemented in 5 lines of RxJS and was also rathere interested in observables til he met some haters on a conf.

I remember him asking a question about observables being the next thing or future or something and the speaker just didn't know what to say.