[tootie]

I understand the value of redux but I'd lump it in with git as an invaluable and elegant solution with a terrible interface. The structure is very confusing up front and makes no sense to an outsider. I learned react in about 15 minutes because it's so intuitive, but redux keeps making me scratch my head.

IMO, It's a fundamental flaw with JavaScript that interfaces aren't rigorous or discoverable and redux is a willing victim.

[acemarke]

Can you clarify what you mean by "terrible interface" for Redux? What structure is "confusing"?

Is this a concern with docs, the core Redux store API, the React-Redux API, or something else? Any suggestions for how we can improve things?

[tootie]

I think it's mostly react-redux. There's arcane boilerplate in the connect function, mapDispatchToProps looks like a leaky abstraction, actions being passed as objects with a string in them is super brittle.

I don't have a fix, but I think just being able to inject a link to the store and then having an API that can be manipulated directly from the component would more comprehensible and cut down on the layers of indirection. I typically see corresponding action, reducer js file for a component when 95% of the logic is already in the component. Just merge them.

[acemarke]

Appreciate the feedback. Could you give specific examples of what you mean by "arcane boilerplate" and "leaky abstractions"? We don't have any plans to change the actual API, but I would genuinely be interested in any suggestions or concerns you have with it.

It's also worth noting that I personally highly recommend consistently writing separate action creator functions [0], and using the "object shorthand" argument to `connect` instead of writing a separate `mapDispatch` function.

That said, it also seems like part of what you're concerned with is the fundamental design of Redux. The use of plain object actions as a layer of indirection is deliberate [1], and it's what enables capabilities like time-travel debugging. Actions need to be serializable for that to work, and therefore strings are the best solution for the action's `type` field [2].

You certainly don't have to keep _everything_ in Redux. You should consider whether a given bit of state should live in Redux, or in a component's state [3]. But, if you _are_ going to keep data in Redux, then actions and reducers are necessary for the Redux data flow. They don't have to be in separate files [4], but they need to exist to update the store.

[0] http://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2016/10/idiomatic-redux-why...

[1] http://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2017/05/idiomatic-redux-tao...

[2] https://redux.js.org/docs/faq/Actions.html#actions-string-co...

[3] https://redux.js.org/docs/faq/OrganizingState.html#organizin...

[4] http://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2017/05/idiomatic-redux-tao...

[tootie]

I guess it's a matter of taste, but using object shorthand for an API seems like and anti-pattern. APIs are where a rigorous definition is most valuable. Like I said, it works fantastically well once you get the hang of it, but try showing this to a newb and ask them to trace it. Nightmare.

I'm not being a grump either. I coded Perl professionally for over 5 years and am well-versed in terse, functional idioms, but the community rightfully decided that strings of punctuation were too obtuse for practical use.