[acemarke]

I see people ask on a literal daily basis "does Context replace Redux?". So, I was trying to make a few points in that post, mostly clarifying common misconceptions, because the question itself is rooted in some major misunderstandings about what these tools even _do_ in the first place:

- that Context doesn't "manage" anything by itself, and definitely not "state"

- That there are significant technical differences between the combo of `useReducer` + `useContext` and Redux/React-Redux, in terms of render performance, data access, and usage patterns.

- That this means there are also different use cases for those tools as well.

I wouldn't use Redux to maintain state for a form or isolated chunk of the app, I'd use context + `useReducer`. On the flip side, if I do have "global" state, I would pretty quickly switch over to putting it in Redux instead.

[solardev]

Yeah, except... the technicalities make it seem like no, but in reality use context CAN replace redux a lot of times. The power of redux is often unnecessary (or just gets in the way, really), and context is enough.

Your post makes it seem like they are wildly different when in fact they often meet the same need. Use context is helpful precisely because it can replace redux in many situations.

It doesn't really matter how different they are under the hood. Redux is often used only as a global store of state, and context makes that much easier... even globally.

Maybe redux is good for some edge cases, but otherwise it's just overengineered bloat. Context is much more elegant and intuitive. There's no reason to force yourself to use the Flux pattern if you don't have to. I'd certainly never add redux to a project unless I absolutely needed to, it's such a pain...