3 ms·
Why doesn't Clojurescript eliminates the need for something like Redux where Reason does? as mentioned in the article.
by Scarbutt 8y ago
Why doesn't Clojurescript eliminates the need for something like Redux where Reason does? as mentioned in the article.
- lilactown 8y agoIME using ClojureScript, you don't really need something like Redux/re-frame all that often either. Once you've handled local state and remote data dependencies, you have like 10% of your app state left. That can easily be solved with a global atom (a la re-frame) or something like the new React context API. Our understanding of how to handle state, remote data fetching, etc. has grown a lot over the last few years. Both the React & ClojureScript ecosystem went all-in on global state stores like Redux because, at the time, we thought we needed it. It felt like, if we needed a global state store for one thing, that it made more sense to just put everything in there for cohesiveness. It also was hard to determine up-front what was needed globally (mostly data IME) and what was only needed locally. It turns out that local state and something like apollo/relay/"suspense" for remote data solve the 80-90% case, and now we're getting better tools like React context to handle the last 10%. I don't think that Redux/re-frame is going away, but the number of apps that I would implement with them has gone way down over the years.