5 ms·

I understand that, and it's disappointing. I was excited about the prospect of a very lightweight router to use with Redux that didn't require React as a depend

I understand that, and it's disappointing. I was excited about the prospect of a very lightweight router to use with Redux that didn't require React as a dependency. Oh well, I guess that's why Github has a "fork" button :)

lemevi 11y ago
What are you using if not React? Why wouldn't you use React if you are using Redux?
- bananaoomarang 11y ago
  Redux is just a set of tools to manage a state tree, doesn't depend on React specifically, and no real reason have it as the view layer other than it being in widespread use.
  - lemevi 11y ago
    Right, but I'm asking why not react in this specific instance.
- colordrops 11y ago
  I'm not the OP, but I'm working on a project that originally did not use Redux, but was integrated after the fact. It is using a presentation layer other than React, and thus we would not be able to use this router.
  - marknutter 11y ago
    Exactly my scenario at work.
- marknutter 11y ago
  Aurelia at work and for personal projects I use virtual-dom (https://github.com/Matt-Esch/virtual-dom https://github.com/Matt-Esch/virtual-dom). There are plenty of (IMO) better view libraries out there that can be nicely paired with Redux, so naturally it's upsetting to see libraries with "redux" in the title that also have a hard React dependency. It's also upsetting that I'm getting down-voted for having this opinion.
  - lemevi 11y ago
    Interesting. Personally I have a hard time seeing how anything that requires separate templates as being better than React. I never want to go back to that. There's hardly a need to query elements. The only time one does is when using non-react libraries or doing some animation logic. And so there's no state in the HTML, and no need to render HTML elements that aren't visible. Virtual DOM seems ok except I find looking at JSX to be much easier on the eyes than JavaScript.
    - marknutter 11y ago
      There's no need to query elements with Aurelia either, and it also does not render anything that isn't visible. I only use Aurelia because that's what they were using when I got hired, but for my personal projects I use Virtual DOM. React is just way too heavy for my needs and if I'm going to put markup in my JS files I might as well just use Hyperscript so it actually is javascript. By pairing virtual-dom with redux, my entire application's state, including how the UI currently looks, is held in one large immutable object which I just apply reducers to when I want to change the interface. React, and all the other modern front-end frameworks, still have to deal with state living in two places (in stores and in the DOM) whereas in my apps' state only lives in once place - the Redux store. Don't get me wrong, React pushed front-end development forward in a big way, but a lot of cool stuff has come out of the woodwork in response to it that is definitely worth checking out. I'm more interested true functional-reactive web libraries than React. Cycle, Elm, Ohm, and Mercury are a few I would recommend checking out.

lemevi 11y ago

What are you using if not React? Why wouldn't you use React if you are using Redux?

bananaoomarang 11y ago
Redux is just a set of tools to manage a state tree, doesn't depend on React specifically, and no real reason have it as the view layer other than it being in widespread use.
- lemevi 11y ago
  Right, but I'm asking why not react in this specific instance.
colordrops 11y ago
I'm not the OP, but I'm working on a project that originally did not use Redux, but was integrated after the fact. It is using a presentation layer other than React, and thus we would not be able to use this router.
- marknutter 11y ago
  Exactly my scenario at work.
marknutter 11y ago
Aurelia at work and for personal projects I use virtual-dom (https://github.com/Matt-Esch/virtual-dom https://github.com/Matt-Esch/virtual-dom). There are plenty of (IMO) better view libraries out there that can be nicely paired with Redux, so naturally it's upsetting to see libraries with "redux" in the title that also have a hard React dependency. It's also upsetting that I'm getting down-voted for having this opinion.
- lemevi 11y ago
  Interesting. Personally I have a hard time seeing how anything that requires separate templates as being better than React. I never want to go back to that. There's hardly a need to query elements. The only time one does is when using non-react libraries or doing some animation logic. And so there's no state in the HTML, and no need to render HTML elements that aren't visible. Virtual DOM seems ok except I find looking at JSX to be much easier on the eyes than JavaScript.
  - marknutter 11y ago
    There's no need to query elements with Aurelia either, and it also does not render anything that isn't visible. I only use Aurelia because that's what they were using when I got hired, but for my personal projects I use Virtual DOM. React is just way too heavy for my needs and if I'm going to put markup in my JS files I might as well just use Hyperscript so it actually is javascript. By pairing virtual-dom with redux, my entire application's state, including how the UI currently looks, is held in one large immutable object which I just apply reducers to when I want to change the interface. React, and all the other modern front-end frameworks, still have to deal with state living in two places (in stores and in the DOM) whereas in my apps' state only lives in once place - the Redux store. Don't get me wrong, React pushed front-end development forward in a big way, but a lot of cool stuff has come out of the woodwork in response to it that is definitely worth checking out. I'm more interested true functional-reactive web libraries than React. Cycle, Elm, Ohm, and Mercury are a few I would recommend checking out.