6 ms·

To be honest, this article scares me from using react/redux, because the author don't know how types works. (I can't be the only one)

by throw20180103 8y ago

acemarke 8y ago
Dan previously used C#, so he knows what static types are. He just said he hasn't used _TypeScript_ specifically. Redux is a simple library that you can read through in a few minutes. It's working great for hundreds of thousands of users. Why would Dan's background scare you off from using it? As for React, there's more than just Dan on the React team. (In particular, Seb Markbage is an incredibly deep thinker, and the rest of the team is great too).
- throw20180103 8y ago
  "and I already forgot most of C#" Does not inspire confidence here. It scares me off for the same reason that hundreds of thousands of people use dynamic languages, and I still believe that this is far from being a good idea. The same way that hundreds of millions of people believe in god, and I still think this is absurd.
  - zbentley 8y ago
    > It scares me off for the same reason that hundreds of thousands of people use dynamic languages, and I still believe that this is far from being a good idea. > The same way that hundreds of millions of people believe in god, and I still think this is absurd. Well, that takes the idea of a 'programming language holy war' to a very literal place.
  - acemarke 8y ago
    Forgetting the details of a specific language syntax is _not_ the same thing as "not knowing how types work".
  - rmrfrmrf 8y ago
    Yeah, I mean I see this article as a not-so-subtle middle finger to computer science elitists, so I don't think backlash was unexpected (on the contrary, welcomed). React itself represents a shift in webdev thought where, instead of desperately trying to establish itself as a "respectable" programming field (see: any Google web technology), it instead focuses on being as accessible as possible and embraces the populist nature of the web. This article is just an extension of that ideology. And, as you've indicated, anyone who would be horrified by that ideology probably is already horrified by the web to begin with.
  - christophilus 8y ago
    Meh. I wrote C# for 13 years of my career, starting with .NET 1.0. I worked at Microsoft, writing C# services, I worked for consultancies writing C# servers, clients, and web apps. I’ve been doing full time JS with some Ruby for the past 5 years. I doubt I could write anything more than “Hello world” in C# without a lot of Googling.
    - throw20180103 8y ago
      "I understand the concept of types and can read annotations but I’ve never written it. The few times I tried, I ran into difficulties." I know it's part of the "typescript" section. But it honestly sounds like it is quite general. I looked his github, and his only C# experience seems to be a tictactoe made in 2014.
      - christophilus 8y ago
        Well, my GitHub would look pretty similar. I stopped writing c# just before the OSS culture came about for that community.
      - danabramov 8y ago
        Author here. I’ve worked on C# codebases professionally for about four years. They’re not open source because half of that time I worked on enterprise software (ASP .NET MVC, Entity Framework, NHibernate) and another half was a closed source product (Xamarin aka MonoTouch, Rx). Prior to that I worked a little on an open source static analysis tool (Gendarme) using Mono Cecil. Prior to that I was moderating the .NET section on one of the largest Russian programming forums and translated documents like LINQ Overview when they came out. I also have a silver C# badge on StackOverflow. (https://stackoverflow.com/help/badges/39/c-sharp?userid=458193 https://stackoverflow.com/help/badges/39/c-sharp?userid=4581...) I know how types work. My remark was that I haven’t worked with C# for about four years. I’m not aware of changes between versions 5 and 9, and might have forgotten some of the C# syntax for things like lambdas, having worked a lot with JS since then.
        christophilus 8y ago
freehunter 8y ago
I will admit I am a terrible programmer, but I will say using Redux scared me away from using React at first. Maybe my React needs are minimal, but I tried following a tutorial using React and Redux and I was immensely confused. Once I struck out on my own and ditched Redux for just straight React, everything became so much clearer and simpler.
- acemarke 8y ago
  Hi, I'm a Redux maintainer. Anything specific that confused you? Which tutorials were you looking at? We're currently planning a revamp of the Redux docs. I'd really appreciate any feedback on what things caused problems, so we can know how to make the docs better. Feel free to comment here, or ping me on Twitter or in the Reactiflux chat channels. I've also got a survey open asking for suggestions on docs structuring: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfzIkY3fXZ8PrQKScYMK0YoEgALfAK2qQ0mOj1_ibKv2qDTuQ/viewform https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfzIkY3fXZ8PrQKScYM... Also, fwiw, you may be interested in my suggested resources for learning Redux: https://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2017/12/blogged-answers-learn-redux/ https://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2017/12/blogged-answers-le...
  - freehunter 8y ago
    It wasn't the Redux docs, it was the entire mindframe of Redux. This connects to that which connects to that and sets this while this gets that. Like I said, I'm a terrible programmer and I have a hard time keeping complex interactions in my mind. If this block of code needs to change a variable, I want it to just change the variable right there and move on. Having to write the code that needs to change the variable, then switching to another file to write the code that actually changes the variable, then switching to another file to write the code that returns that new variable to my original function is just... so damn unnecessary. There's just too many moving parts that can (and do) break. It's so complex, and when something doesn't work I struggle to debug why. I will admit I did not choose to use Redux, it was part of a tutorial I was following on Udemy. I never got the hang of it, and once I figured out React Native well enough, I quickly scaled back my reliance on Redux. It's made my life a lot easier. My day job is a technical consultant for a major tech company, and we have meetings to discuss the meeting we're going to have before the meeting. The administrative overhead of Redux reminds me of that in a very bad way. Instead of my Facebook login button calling auth_actions.js which then returns the auth token to auth_reducer.js which then returns the auth token to auth_screen.js (but don't forget to add it to the combineReducers in index.js), I just put the authentication code in 'await doAuth()' inside of the auth_screen.js file. I've never heard a convincing reason as to why I shouldn't do that, even though the tutorial I followed said it's a bad idea.
wawhal 8y ago
A software should be judged only based on how functional and performant it is. Judging a software based on the author’s biodata is firstly, not fair and secondly, too presumptuous.

To be honest, this article scares me from using react/redux, because the author don't know how types works. (I can't be the only one)

acemarke 8y ago

Dan previously used C#, so he knows what static types are. He just said he hasn't used _TypeScript_ specifically. Redux is a simple library that you can read through in a few minutes. It's working great for hundreds of thousands of users. Why would Dan's background scare you off from using it? As for React, there's more than just Dan on the React team. (In particular, Seb Markbage is an incredibly deep thinker, and the rest of the team is great too).

throw20180103 8y ago
"and I already forgot most of C#" Does not inspire confidence here. It scares me off for the same reason that hundreds of thousands of people use dynamic languages, and I still believe that this is far from being a good idea. The same way that hundreds of millions of people believe in god, and I still think this is absurd.
- zbentley 8y ago
  > It scares me off for the same reason that hundreds of thousands of people use dynamic languages, and I still believe that this is far from being a good idea. > The same way that hundreds of millions of people believe in god, and I still think this is absurd. Well, that takes the idea of a 'programming language holy war' to a very literal place.
- acemarke 8y ago
  Forgetting the details of a specific language syntax is _not_ the same thing as "not knowing how types work".
- rmrfrmrf 8y ago
  Yeah, I mean I see this article as a not-so-subtle middle finger to computer science elitists, so I don't think backlash was unexpected (on the contrary, welcomed). React itself represents a shift in webdev thought where, instead of desperately trying to establish itself as a "respectable" programming field (see: any Google web technology), it instead focuses on being as accessible as possible and embraces the populist nature of the web. This article is just an extension of that ideology. And, as you've indicated, anyone who would be horrified by that ideology probably is already horrified by the web to begin with.
- christophilus 8y ago
  Meh. I wrote C# for 13 years of my career, starting with .NET 1.0. I worked at Microsoft, writing C# services, I worked for consultancies writing C# servers, clients, and web apps. I’ve been doing full time JS with some Ruby for the past 5 years. I doubt I could write anything more than “Hello world” in C# without a lot of Googling.
  - throw20180103 8y ago
    "I understand the concept of types and can read annotations but I’ve never written it. The few times I tried, I ran into difficulties." I know it's part of the "typescript" section. But it honestly sounds like it is quite general. I looked his github, and his only C# experience seems to be a tictactoe made in 2014.
    - christophilus 8y ago
      Well, my GitHub would look pretty similar. I stopped writing c# just before the OSS culture came about for that community.
    - danabramov 8y ago
      Author here. I’ve worked on C# codebases professionally for about four years. They’re not open source because half of that time I worked on enterprise software (ASP .NET MVC, Entity Framework, NHibernate) and another half was a closed source product (Xamarin aka MonoTouch, Rx). Prior to that I worked a little on an open source static analysis tool (Gendarme) using Mono Cecil. Prior to that I was moderating the .NET section on one of the largest Russian programming forums and translated documents like LINQ Overview when they came out. I also have a silver C# badge on StackOverflow. (https://stackoverflow.com/help/badges/39/c-sharp?userid=458193 https://stackoverflow.com/help/badges/39/c-sharp?userid=4581...) I know how types work. My remark was that I haven’t worked with C# for about four years. I’m not aware of changes between versions 5 and 9, and might have forgotten some of the C# syntax for things like lambdas, having worked a lot with JS since then.
      - christophilus 8y ago

freehunter 8y ago

I will admit I am a terrible programmer, but I will say using Redux scared me away from using React at first. Maybe my React needs are minimal, but I tried following a tutorial using React and Redux and I was immensely confused. Once I struck out on my own and ditched Redux for just straight React, everything became so much clearer and simpler.

acemarke 8y ago
Hi, I'm a Redux maintainer. Anything specific that confused you? Which tutorials were you looking at? We're currently planning a revamp of the Redux docs. I'd really appreciate any feedback on what things caused problems, so we can know how to make the docs better. Feel free to comment here, or ping me on Twitter or in the Reactiflux chat channels. I've also got a survey open asking for suggestions on docs structuring: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfzIkY3fXZ8PrQKScYMK0YoEgALfAK2qQ0mOj1_ibKv2qDTuQ/viewform https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfzIkY3fXZ8PrQKScYM... Also, fwiw, you may be interested in my suggested resources for learning Redux: https://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2017/12/blogged-answers-learn-redux/ https://blog.isquaredsoftware.com/2017/12/blogged-answers-le...
- freehunter 8y ago
  It wasn't the Redux docs, it was the entire mindframe of Redux. This connects to that which connects to that and sets this while this gets that. Like I said, I'm a terrible programmer and I have a hard time keeping complex interactions in my mind. If this block of code needs to change a variable, I want it to just change the variable right there and move on. Having to write the code that needs to change the variable, then switching to another file to write the code that actually changes the variable, then switching to another file to write the code that returns that new variable to my original function is just... so damn unnecessary. There's just too many moving parts that can (and do) break. It's so complex, and when something doesn't work I struggle to debug why. I will admit I did not choose to use Redux, it was part of a tutorial I was following on Udemy. I never got the hang of it, and once I figured out React Native well enough, I quickly scaled back my reliance on Redux. It's made my life a lot easier. My day job is a technical consultant for a major tech company, and we have meetings to discuss the meeting we're going to have before the meeting. The administrative overhead of Redux reminds me of that in a very bad way. Instead of my Facebook login button calling auth_actions.js which then returns the auth token to auth_reducer.js which then returns the auth token to auth_screen.js (but don't forget to add it to the combineReducers in index.js), I just put the authentication code in 'await doAuth()' inside of the auth_screen.js file. I've never heard a convincing reason as to why I shouldn't do that, even though the tutorial I followed said it's a bad idea.

wawhal 8y ago

A software should be judged only based on how functional and performant it is. Judging a software based on the author’s biodata is firstly, not fair and secondly, too presumptuous.