|
|
|
|
|
|
by the_other
2057 days ago
|
|
|
I don’t understand this complaint. Components are functions of their props and state, returning markup (in the form of a descriptor foe the rendering engine). When a prop or piece of state changes, the component must re-render. The fact that useState might be responsible isn’t relevant. That said, I’m also still struggling with hooks (and I like functional programming in JS). I want to like that hooks let you wrap your domain logic into neat bundles, but I find that I miss the lifecycle callbacks of the older class based style. Hooks based components are trying to make modules that are “about” the problem domain they illustrate, but they do it as a feature of React. React isn’t about your problem domain, it’s about driving the DOM and rendering, and I think it makes more sense to treat React code that way. I’m open to having my mind changed on this. I have spent way more time writing classical React than hooks-based. |
|
|
This is why I think it's going to take a bit more time with hooks code to realize the opposite to csande17's complaint is really true: the problem with the hooks React ships with is not that they aren't primitive enough (as the sibling comment points out, csande17 probably is also missing that some of the primitives they are looking for expressly don't exist as React hooks because they don't fit the algebraic effect model React is moving toward, versus the lifecycle model React is moving away from), but instead that the hooks React ships with are still (or least feel) far too primitive an algebra for the "calculus" needed for at least some problem domains (if not most problem domains).
I don't specifically have any answers for what the next layers up will be, though I appreciate this article for trying to explain how algebraic effects work in other languages because that provides ideas from other places of how their primitives get composed.