4 ms·

What are some examples of React's focus on shorthand and abstraction? React is fairly small and doesn't really encourage much at all. The one 'battle' that I of

What are some examples of React's focus on shorthand and abstraction? React is fairly small and doesn't really encourage much at all. The one 'battle' that I often find myself in is "should this be a seperate component?" but that's more of a people problem and something that every language and framework will have.

blhack 7y ago
Instead of writing <ComponentName someVariable={true}> It’s just <ComponentName someVariable> Of course there might be some completely valid reason for this, but it’s baffling to me why you would want this type of shorthand, instead of just explicitly writing what you mean. Of course in golang this could be something like: var someVariable //is false someFunction(someVariable) But I would (personally) not write code like this if I could avoid it. It would be: someVariable := false someFunction(someVariable) It’s a little bit longer, but imo takes slightly less mental overhead to read.
- madeofpalk 7y ago
  It's a shorthand, and its similar to what HTML does. If you don't like the optional shorthand, don't use it? I don't understand how this is something exclusive to React, or something it specifically encourages.
  - blhack 7y ago
    Yeah you might be right, and it definitely possible this is common and I’m just weird for not liking it.
    - christophilus 7y ago
      It’s common, but you’re not weird. I’ve done a lot of React and front end programming, and I hate this pattern, too.
- detaro 7y ago
  it mirrors HTML syntax: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/common-microsyntaxes.html#boolean-attributes https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/common-microsyntaxes....
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- woutr_be 7y ago
  I'm with you on this one, I've seen people rewrite things like this, and to me this is just personal preferences, and it's something that the team need to agree on.
iamaelephant 7y ago
Hooks.
- gherkinnn 7y ago
  HoCs

blhack 7y ago

Instead of writing <ComponentName someVariable={true}> It’s just <ComponentName someVariable> Of course there might be some completely valid reason for this, but it’s baffling to me why you would want this type of shorthand, instead of just explicitly writing what you mean. Of course in golang this could be something like: var someVariable //is false someFunction(someVariable) But I would (personally) not write code like this if I could avoid it. It would be: someVariable := false someFunction(someVariable) It’s a little bit longer, but imo takes slightly less mental overhead to read.

madeofpalk 7y ago
It's a shorthand, and its similar to what HTML does. If you don't like the optional shorthand, don't use it? I don't understand how this is something exclusive to React, or something it specifically encourages.
- blhack 7y ago
  Yeah you might be right, and it definitely possible this is common and I’m just weird for not liking it.
  - christophilus 7y ago
    It’s common, but you’re not weird. I’ve done a lot of React and front end programming, and I hate this pattern, too.
detaro 7y ago
it mirrors HTML syntax: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/common-microsyntaxes.html#boolean-attributes https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/common-microsyntaxes....
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
woutr_be 7y ago
I'm with you on this one, I've seen people rewrite things like this, and to me this is just personal preferences, and it's something that the team need to agree on.

iamaelephant 7y ago

Hooks.

gherkinnn 7y ago
HoCs