4 ms·
> More worryingly, however, is your response to the critiques of this thread. If my concerns were so wrongheaded and just so darn disagreeable, shouldn't you ha
by jdgiese 8y ago
> More worryingly, however, is your response to the critiques of this thread. If my concerns were so wrongheaded and just so darn disagreeable, shouldn't you have simply ignored them? Or wait and see if they were validated by others?
I found the response to be quite reasonable, and certainly not worrying.
Why would it be a good idea to ignore people that disagree with you? It seems like it would be better to provide rational counter arguments, in the hopes of starting a useful discussion.
I have used Redux on a few projects, largely due to the hype (I.e., good recommendations from others in the community) surrounding it. Without intending to I ran into several discussions on SO and Github where Dan explained why people may not need redux. I think this is a very nice thing, and I think it is unfair to blame Dan or other developers for not reining in the hype more.
I do agree that the title of the article is a bit alarmist and perhaps counter productive.
- acemarke 8y agoI will admit to deliberately choosing an _ever_-so-slightly clickbait-y title to get people's attention :) But given the kinds of questions I've seen thrown around, I think it was legitimate as well.
- hitekker 8y agoIgnore concerns, not people. And only if those concerns are objectionable and unvalidated by others. A good example of how to ignore concerns would be comparing Dan's responses here with that of Acemarke's. Dan's is to-the-point and confident, whereas Acemarke's is... markedly less so. Really, the issue here is not how one developer communicates but how they communicate as a team. It's obvious that this self-damaging article wasn't formally approved by every Redux stakeholder-- but I also recognize that no one on the team expected for this to happen.