[revskill]

It's important, because you don't need to care about props vs state, instead, just consume the context deep in your component tree.

One use case, is, suppose you have two independent contexts at two branches, now, if you want to share those data to 3rd branch, you just create new context with value from the first two contexts.

[thereare5lights]

This is starting to sound like the scope from Angular 1.

[munchbunny]

Contexts in React are like raw pointers in C++. There are reasons to use them, but every time you do, it should raise eyebrows, because they are finicky, complicated to reason about, and thus full of pitfalls.

[pbedat]

Yep. That's why context should be used very very rarely or never. When I teach react, I try to make a long detour around them. I would not consider it being the most important concept. Its only a side effect model.

[eropple]

IMO, context does a lot to remove the value of MobX from React applications. Not necessarily Redux; Redux gives you some additional stuff, particularly around state tracking and rewinding. But I haven't seen a MobX project where a judiciously used context doesn't solve the same problem within the React-specific ecosystem.

[hombre_fatal]

The value of mobx is that you implicitly link each component to its data dependencies by dereferencing arbitrary paths into your storage objects in the render() function so that the component rerenders only when data at those paths change.

Does the Context achieve this as well? From a quick search, the Context seems to force rerender of any consumer on any change.

[revskill]

You can use library like reselect to optimize. The job of context is simple: implicitly passing down value to deep component.