[nawgz]

> hooks aren't JS

This is so silly. Hooks are literally hooks into a scheduling algorithm you are at the mercy of. That scheduling algorithm is pure JS. Of course you don't have classical control flow in someone else's scheduler.

The key users are referring to when talking about "JS vs magic" is that React is just constructing objects and invoking functions, with known semantics, whereas Solid and Svelte are auto-magic-reactive systems without clear semantics rising from the choice to do even more things in their internal black boxes than React, such as never re-rendering components, dark compiler magic on syntax that doesn't naturally map to a JS tree, and other such things

[jbreckmckye]

Indeed, part of svelte's whole "magic" is to interpret labelled blocks beginning with "$" as a hint to do all manner of AOT codegen

[mejutoco]

But hooks need to be named "useX" and have restrictions on where to be called (that a program detects). While they are of js clearly they are not "normal" js functions either.

While I use hooks without problem, I also feel like it is an invented mini-language with a lot of extra quirks. Maybe the problem is js does not map elegantly to some of these functional concepts without a good type system.

[jakelazaroff]

Hooks don’t actually need to be named “useX”. That’s the convention, and the React team provides a lint rule that enforces it, but you can name your hooks whatever you want and it’ll work fine.

I’m not what sure what you mean by not “normal” JS functions, though? They’re an API provided by a framework, and — like all APIs — they have specific constraints that govern how they’re used.

[mejutoco]

Absolutely correct. I stand corrected. There is also a lint rule (the program I was refering to) to check that hooks are not called in some wrong places IIRC. Those lint rules are the default for create react app.

To each their own. Although I use react and hooks, for my taste the hooks api is not very clean. All these are implicit not explicit and without linting they can easily result in runtime errors. But maybe I am spoiled by Elm ;)

[Spivak]

> have restrictions on where to be called

This is because hooks are just next() calls on an iterator. Is it magic and entirely because the devs thought it was more beautiful than having to pass a key like state = useState("state", 0)? Absolutely. Does it transcend JS, no.

   hooks = [1, 2, 3, 4]
   
   isOne = next(hooks)
   isTwo = next(hooks)

   if flipcoin()
      isThree = next(hooks)

   # oops, it's sometimes 3
   isFour = next(hooks)

[nawgz]

> But hooks need to be named "useX"

No they don't, that's a suggested convention

> have restrictions on where to be called (that a program detects)

Yes, it is strange that they opted for this implicit approach, but this is the nature of interacting with a scheduling algorithm in real-time; it is with limitations

I agree they are clearly not unrestricted free-use JS, but they aren't a custom DSL hydrated by compile-time craziness, they are hooks into a scheduling algorithm to help you maintain consistent state in a giant tree. I'm not sure how that is ever going to be free. Perhaps a better type system can help but this is fundamentally complex