| Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I'm a fan of your work and writings, they've been valuable for the whole JS/React ecosystem. > you could probably implement a simple version of Hooks yourself in <200 lines It reminds me of the Egghead video course in which you described "how to write your own Redux". That was a great explanation of the paradigm, and transformed how I think about state management in an application. What I love about the concepts behind the paradigm, is that they can be implemented (as they are in Redux and elsewhere) as a handful of tiny functions that work with or without React, for composable and reusable state and actions. I think my hesitation about Hooks as they're implemented, is that it seems to go against the ideal of de-coupled, pure functions. Although it does encourage that for the users of hooks, its own implementation feels coupled and impure. For example, people are applying the Flux/Redux paradigm outside of React components and the UI/views layer, like server-side or independent features that need to manage their own states. I wish that Hooks had taken a similar approach to Redux, as a canonical approach to a generic and generally applicable paradigm, where one could "write your own Hooks". > I strongly encourage you to play with it before forming a final opinion. Pretty much everyone who loves it now hated it at first. (I’m not an exception to that.) Yes, I'll keep an open mind and study it more. I read "React as a UI Runtime" when it was published, and it was insightful (will read it again to really digest it). I do love the concepts and principles on which React has been built, so I'll try to understand the reasonings behind how/why Hooks were implemented the way they are. |