3 ms·

I entirely share your "ew, gross, no" re: mixins generally. That their being added to React in the first place is part of this history is definitely interesting

by asark 8y ago

I entirely share your "ew, gross, no" re: mixins generally. That their being added to React in the first place is part of this history is definitely interesting. Thing is, I don't even consider Hooks not OO. They're just a really limited in-JS partial re-implementation with bizarre syntax. React tracks your "this" for you so it can dispatch the calls correctly. Your constructor gets mushed around in your render function for some reason. But it's attaching properties and methods to an instance. It's going to require care and discipline to use it correctly, given its quirks, so just direct that same discipline toward composition-over-inheritance instead, is my thought, which you can do without yet another way to write things. The fix is quit hitting yourself, in short, but if you don't I guess we'll hand you another way to hit yourself, but differently? This is just one more layer of complication that everyone's now got to understand (or, more likely, not, but use anyway) to even read other people's React codebases.

danabramov 8y ago
Sorry but this is still pretty hand-wavy :-) I’d be happy to discuss a specific “before” and “after” code example. There’s neither methods nor properties in Hooks code. I think you might be doing the same thing you think we are doing — you’re projecting the API you see onto the metaphors that feel more familiar to you. But these metaphors don’t really match what the API is doing or what it represents. But again, this discussion is fruitless without specific code examples to anchor it.
- asark 8y ago
  > There’s neither methods nor properties in Hooks code. I think you might be doing the same thing you think we are doing — you’re projecting the API you see onto the metaphors that feel more familiar to you. But these metaphors don’t really match what the API is doing or what it represents. I mean that Hooks implementation re-implements key elements of a typical implementation of methods and properties, and end up mimicking them in important ways, differing mainly in the parts of that it doesn't include. Not that it actually uses methods and properties (though it does, of course—the "current component" that React tracks is an object, and the Hooks code leans on that to determine its calling context). > you’re projecting the API you see onto the metaphors that feel more familiar to you. Place a typical OO implementation next to what Hooks are doing, and you don't even have to squint to see that they're quite close. The porcelain's super-weird, yes—magical in all the "wrong" places, explicit in all the "wrong" places, missing a ton of mostly-inheritance-related stuff—but even with all that a Render function using Hooks manages to look an awful lot like a class declaration, as if someone had implemented classes in a language but forgotten to add any of the syntax to support it. EDIT: I mean, seriously. The source is public. It's a really fun read. https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/packages/react/src/ReactHooks.js https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/packages/react...

by asark 8y ago

danabramov 8y ago

Sorry but this is still pretty hand-wavy :-) I’d be happy to discuss a specific “before” and “after” code example. There’s neither methods nor properties in Hooks code. I think you might be doing the same thing you think we are doing — you’re projecting the API you see onto the metaphors that feel more familiar to you. But these metaphors don’t really match what the API is doing or what it represents. But again, this discussion is fruitless without specific code examples to anchor it.

asark 8y ago
> There’s neither methods nor properties in Hooks code. I think you might be doing the same thing you think we are doing — you’re projecting the API you see onto the metaphors that feel more familiar to you. But these metaphors don’t really match what the API is doing or what it represents. I mean that Hooks implementation re-implements key elements of a typical implementation of methods and properties, and end up mimicking them in important ways, differing mainly in the parts of that it doesn't include. Not that it actually uses methods and properties (though it does, of course—the "current component" that React tracks is an object, and the Hooks code leans on that to determine its calling context). > you’re projecting the API you see onto the metaphors that feel more familiar to you. Place a typical OO implementation next to what Hooks are doing, and you don't even have to squint to see that they're quite close. The porcelain's super-weird, yes—magical in all the "wrong" places, explicit in all the "wrong" places, missing a ton of mostly-inheritance-related stuff—but even with all that a Render function using Hooks manages to look an awful lot like a class declaration, as if someone had implemented classes in a language but forgotten to add any of the syntax to support it. EDIT: I mean, seriously. The source is public. It's a really fun read. https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/packages/react/src/ReactHooks.js https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/packages/react...