4 ms·
If simple things were possible before with React, then they still are, and that's not changing. You don't need Flux and Redux a lot of the time; in my experienc
by spicyj 10y ago
If simple things were possible before with React, then they still are, and that's not changing. You don't need Flux and Redux a lot of the time; in my experience they're overused and React component state is underused.
I agree the community mentality of adding lots of complexity on top is a problem. We're working on improving this, but if you have ideas I'd be interested to hear them too.
- nathancahill 10y ago> "in my experience they're overused and React component state is underused" Thank you, I've felt the same way. A lot of projects take "ALL STATE MUST BE IN THE STORE" to an extreme.
- sotojuan 10y agoWhich is funny because you'll never hear that from Dan or any other authors.
- nathancahill 10y agoikr
- eweise 10y agoIMO its no more trouble to put state in a redux store than in the component directly and doing so makes my components more consistent. I'm not a react guru though so maybe I'm missing something.
- nathancahill 10y agoEh, sometimes state isn't relevant outside of a component, so while you could put it in a store, it's possibly better to put it in the component. Single responsibility.
- brlewis 10y agoI bet React programmers who write a Mithril component or two would come back to React with more readiness to use component state. I don't have a plan for how you could use this idea to improve the community, though. As for the mentality of adding complexity -- are you sure that's a community problem? It seems a problem with programming in general. Advocates of adding complexity tend to be louder than advocates of using what's already there.
- spicyj 10y agoI meant "community" as opposed to the official guidance we supply, where we try hard to keep things simple. I know that it's easy to slip into the trap of making things more complex and I don't blame anyone for that mentality winning out.