|
|
|
|
|
by genezeta
2693 days ago
|
|
> Maybe, just maybe, some of the people who are truly enthusiastic about hooks aren't simply naive, maybe some are enthusiastic because they do understand how hooks work and what implications they have. In the exact same way that some of the people who are not enthusiastic aren't people who haven't looked at Hooks and don't understand them. Maybe they aren't enthusiastic even though they do understand them. That is exactly the point. Not your experience since the 1990s or my sarcasm, but not assuming that if someone does not agree with your view must be because they don't understand. |
|
Negativity is the cultural norm on HN so much that many people look at HN ("the orange website") the way HN looks at Reddit.
I'm not talking about constructive criticism, heck even non-constructive criticism would be a welcome addition if at least it attacked something more foundational than e.g. "relying on call order is a footgun" (which btw is true but ignores the many footguns involved in the APIs hooks are replacing).
You haven't given a single argument why "hooks are bad if you understand them". That makes you indistinguishable from the usual drive-by negativity. If you want to appear like you have something to say, maybe you should actually say that instead of just insisting your opinion is based on something substantial.
For the record here are the top level responses to the original comment I responded to:
* omeid2 says hooks are change for the sake of change and they only help saving a few keystrokes
* geezerjay says hooks bring nothing new (then pivots to "no new features" when pushed on it)
And then there's my comment where I say HN is jaded.
The first response by omeid2 is demonstrably false: hooks allow collocating all code related to aspects of your components that previously resided in lifecycle methods. They also get rid of the leaky abstraction of `this.state` and `this.setState`, make it easier (read: less error-prone) to respond to prop changes and eliminate the indirection required to consume contexts.
The second response by geezerjay is true in a trivial way and false when taken at face value but further downthread he doesn't elaborate and instead just insists he's not being understood.
Meanwhile your entire contribution so far can be summarised as "no you" at worst or "some people don't like hooks even though they understand them" without going into any tangible specifics at best.