| I'm a Redux maintainer, and that post is utterly and completely wrong in every way. What Dan Abramov showed at JSConf Iceland was a pair of demo apps that illustrated upcoming improvements in React related to async rendering and data cache handling. Those features have no bearing on whether or not you use Redux, and are certainly not "replacements" for Redux. The linked tweet from Kent C Dodds was a joke tweet in a joke discussion thread, and the author of that site has repeatedly shown that either they don't understand the React world, they are very bad at writing and researching, or that they're just flat-out trolling. There's certainly been plenty of discussion lately about when it's appropriate to use Redux, and I'd agree that many people are told to use it blindly without understanding what the tradeoffs are. It's also true that the new React context API (available in the upcoming React 16.3 release) means you won't need to pull in Redux _just_ to avoid "prop-drilling" data all the way down the tree. However, Redux is absolutely not deprecated and not being replaced, and the React team isn't in charge of Redux anyway. Dan Abramov and Andrew Clark, the co-creators, are both now part of the React team, and are no longer active maintainers - Tim Dorr and I are. We _do_ still talk a lot about what the future plans are for Redux, and in fact right now we're working on updating the React-Redux library so that it properly works with the "async rendering" capabilities once those are released (see discussion [0] and an early WIP PR I filed yesterday [1] ). [0] https://github.com/reactjs/react-redux/issues/890 [1] https://github.com/reactjs/react-redux/pull/898 |
If this is a growing perception amongst the developer community, it’s only a matter of time before it begins to impact the Redux’s relevancy.