3 ms·

ClojureScript user here, with a big SaaS app using React, developed over the last 4 years or so, using the excellent Rum library, https://github.com/tonsky/rum

by jwr 7y ago

ClojureScript user here, with a big SaaS app using React, developed over the last 4 years or so, using the excellent Rum library, https://github.com/tonsky/rum https://github.com/tonsky/rum. It seems to me that React Hooks, like so many things in the JavaScript world, solve a problem I do not have. To this day, despite being a heavy user of React, I don't even fully know what they do. I've read the "Motivation" section of the React Hooks Intro, and it seems that I have none of the problems they describe: I can (and do) easily add stateful logic via Rum mixins, and that logic is reusable across components. Also thanks to Rum mixins, complex logic is understandable and does not get all thrown into a single 'componentDidMount' function. As to "Classes confuse both people and machines", I find it hard to relate to this problem, because I don't really see any classes. I work with components that have a render function and mixins, and if you don't use any mixins, a component looks just like a function. This tends to be a recurring theme: every once in a while I read an article about JavaScript and React, and I can't even relate to the problems, because they do not exist in my world. Another good example is hints on how to optimize apps to avoid excessive re-rendering, something I get for free with ClojureScript and immutable data structures (you can always quickly tell if two data structures are equal and avoid rendering).

onion2k 7y ago
You've solved the problem that hooks solve by using Rum mixins instead, and you're confused why you don't need hooks?
- iLemming 7y ago
  Have you actually used Clojurescript with React? Just any cljs library - Reagent, Rum, Re-frame, Fulcro? Maybe try it, perhaps then you'd understand why Clojure developers often get confused what problems every new hype cycle in JS/TS world is trying to solve. Because Clojure idioms often nicely turn them into something you don't have to worry about at all.
  - lilactown 7y ago
    I use ClojureScript professionally, and I believe Hooks are great. Reagent, Re-frame all have tradeoffs that they've made to try and shoe-horn in a solution that Hooks cleanly provides first-class support for. I see a lot of other Clojure users wade into discussions like these and reveal an unexamined view of the technology they use and the way that other communities are trying to solve these same problems. It's really discouraging to see people put Clojure(Script) and associated libs on a pedestal, because it removes any nuance from the discussion and makes people think that the Clojure community are a bunch of holier-than-thou zealots. FWIW, I was (am still) super excited about Hooks and have posted a lot of things critiquing ClojureScript React wrappers in the past, but I recognize now that they are making tradeoffs that ultimately are what the authors think are in the best interest of their user base. It would really be great if you (and everyone else) would enter these discussions with the same assumption.
    - iLemming 7y ago
      Although I haven't criticized Hooks, I humbly accept the fact that there are flaws in my argumentation. You are right.
    - jwr 7y ago
      Ok, so, what problem do Hooks solve for me, as a ClojureScript/Rum user? (apart from compatibility with other libraries that use them)
      - lilactown 7y ago
        Here's a rundown on mixins vs. hooks: https://reactjs.org/blog/2016/07/13/mixins-considered-harmful.html https://reactjs.org/blog/2016/07/13/mixins-considered-harmfu... I haven't used Rum in anger, but I do use reagent at work, and there are compatibility tradeoffs not just with other libs but also React itself that storing lots of state outside of the component tree in a mutable ref causes. There's potentially a lot of work to be done to support React concurrent mode, which has a measurable impact to the user experience of apps that we build. Following best practices set by the React team - including using hooks for sharing and composing behaviors - sets us up better to take advantage of that in the future. Ultimately though you don't need to rewrite your Rum/reagent apps, but instead there's an onus on the maintainers of those libs to build scaffolding around their lib code and encourage their users to migrate in a direction that will benefit them.
Scarbutt 7y ago
Yeah, that's why rum recently added support for hooks...
- iLemming 7y ago
  Rum and Reagent added support for hooks mainly for compatibility. Never needed them before.

by jwr 7y ago

onion2k 7y ago

You've solved the problem that hooks solve by using Rum mixins instead, and you're confused why you don't need hooks?

iLemming 7y ago
Have you actually used Clojurescript with React? Just any cljs library - Reagent, Rum, Re-frame, Fulcro? Maybe try it, perhaps then you'd understand why Clojure developers often get confused what problems every new hype cycle in JS/TS world is trying to solve. Because Clojure idioms often nicely turn them into something you don't have to worry about at all.
- lilactown 7y ago
  I use ClojureScript professionally, and I believe Hooks are great. Reagent, Re-frame all have tradeoffs that they've made to try and shoe-horn in a solution that Hooks cleanly provides first-class support for. I see a lot of other Clojure users wade into discussions like these and reveal an unexamined view of the technology they use and the way that other communities are trying to solve these same problems. It's really discouraging to see people put Clojure(Script) and associated libs on a pedestal, because it removes any nuance from the discussion and makes people think that the Clojure community are a bunch of holier-than-thou zealots. FWIW, I was (am still) super excited about Hooks and have posted a lot of things critiquing ClojureScript React wrappers in the past, but I recognize now that they are making tradeoffs that ultimately are what the authors think are in the best interest of their user base. It would really be great if you (and everyone else) would enter these discussions with the same assumption.
  - iLemming 7y ago
    Although I haven't criticized Hooks, I humbly accept the fact that there are flaws in my argumentation. You are right.
  - jwr 7y ago
    Ok, so, what problem do Hooks solve for me, as a ClojureScript/Rum user? (apart from compatibility with other libraries that use them)
    - lilactown 7y ago
      Here's a rundown on mixins vs. hooks: https://reactjs.org/blog/2016/07/13/mixins-considered-harmful.html https://reactjs.org/blog/2016/07/13/mixins-considered-harmfu... I haven't used Rum in anger, but I do use reagent at work, and there are compatibility tradeoffs not just with other libs but also React itself that storing lots of state outside of the component tree in a mutable ref causes. There's potentially a lot of work to be done to support React concurrent mode, which has a measurable impact to the user experience of apps that we build. Following best practices set by the React team - including using hooks for sharing and composing behaviors - sets us up better to take advantage of that in the future. Ultimately though you don't need to rewrite your Rum/reagent apps, but instead there's an onus on the maintainers of those libs to build scaffolding around their lib code and encourage their users to migrate in a direction that will benefit them.

Scarbutt 7y ago

Yeah, that's why rum recently added support for hooks...

iLemming 7y ago
Rum and Reagent added support for hooks mainly for compatibility. Never needed them before.