7 ms·

I recently was trying to diagnose a bug with React state in someone else's project. Everything I found said "install the React extension". Okay but this thing b

I recently was trying to diagnose a bug with React state in someone else's project. Everything I found said "install the React extension". Okay but this thing boils down to just JavaScript right? I ultimately failed to find out how to inspect anything meaningful without the extension -- it's almost as if nobody knows how React works. The abstraction is bananas. Sure, JavaScript sucks but is this better? I swore off massive impenetrable abstractions like React eons ago and I'm saner for it. Abstractions are supposed to remove complexity, not treat users like morons.

nicoburns 6y ago
When you're trying to debug a JavaScript error do you use Chrome's built in JavaScript debugger, or do run Chrome in GDB? Or perhaps you get out your oscilloscope and try attaching it to your CPU? Debugging at multiple levels of abstraction is nothing new. The fact that there are debugging tools at the React level does reduce complexity. It means you don't need to understand the details of how React is implemented. You can just think in terms of React concepts (which are quite straightforward and have excellent documentation).
- agentwiggles 6y ago
  I got a good chuckle at the silliness of the mental image of hooking up a scope to diagnose a JS error. Thanks for the laugh. (tl;dr: lol)
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  Is React language or a library? Does it have its own virtual machine? If I'm debugging something that compiles down to assembly, sure, I can use GDB. Why shouldn't I be able to use the JavaScript debugger? Why does React go though so much effort to obfuscate its internals to such an extreme? There are a million other JavaScript libraries that do not have this problem, for what it's worth. > It means you don't need to understand the details of how React is implemented. Isn't this the topic of discussion? Why shouldn't it be as simple as "React stores state in this variable" and I can just poke at it like any other variable? Abstractions are great, but they all leak eventually. Being able to see through the abstraction is immensely valuable, regardless of where you are in the stack. Don't confuse simplicity for its pernicious cousin convenience, which usually does not actually reduce complexity, but heralds it.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    > Is React language or a library? Does it have its own virtual machine? It's a library, but it does provide a runtime. As such it IMO makes sense that it would have it's own debugging tools. This is pretty common for complex frameworks. Other frontend frameworks like Angular and Vue do it. As do backend frameworks like Rails and Laravel. Or as another example you could look at Unity (the game framework). You can still use the JavaScript debugger, and I do all the time with React code. But for React specific concepts the React specific tools provide a better experience. > Why does React go though so much effort to obfuscate its internals to such an extreme? There are a million other JavaScript libraries that do not have this problem, for what it's worth. It doesn't do it intentionally. It's internals are somewhat complex for performance reasons. Which other JavaScript libraries allow you to inspect their current state with the JavaScript debugger? That's what the React dev tools give you: state inspection. IME, lot's libraries make inspecting that quite difficult (unless they're using global variables). > Why shouldn't it be as simple as "React stores state in this variable" and I can just poke at it like any other variable? The problem is that you can't typically poke variables using the JavaScript debugger. To do so you need to get a reference to the variable. And you can only reasonably do that for globals. > Abstractions are great, but they all leak eventually. Being able to see through the abstraction is immensely valuable, regardless of where you are in the stack. I guess I've just never hit into the limitations of the React abstraction (and I've done pretty complex things). Nor have I ever hit a bug in the implementation. To me it's like my database or my filesystem: sure it's great to be able to peak under the hood if I really need to, but 99.9% of the time I'm super glad that I don't. I've had much worse experiences with Angular (1 and 2) where I frequently felt like the abstraction was leaking a lot.
    - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
      As someone who works on and fixes bugs in databases and filesystems, perhaps we don't look at things the same way.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        Well, parent can find an error in a React app with a standard JS debugger, you can find an error in databases and filesystems with gdb or some such, but not vice versa. Can be as simple as that: familiarity.
- jorblumesea 6y ago
  Debugging a popular library is not at all equivalent to those layers of abstraction. This argument is so flawed it almost feels malicious.
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  It's a bit unfair to expect a framework not to provide new abstractions. That's required almost by definition. In React's defense, it's far from "impenetrable." In fact, its API exposes less than a dozen attachment points (considering render + lifecycle methods or their hook equivalents). It's a small and stable interface on top of a simple tree structure and an intuitive reconciliation algorithm. Most of the time you don't even need to reason about its logic, but when you do, it's understandable and debuggable. I'm also skeptical that we should consider framework-specific dev tools as evidence of an impenetrable abstraction. As long as the tools strictly enhance the debugging experience, they are a feature, not a smell. They are evidence of a problem when they only exist because it's impossible to debug the API without them. For example, Apollo Dev Tools "strictly enhances" the debugging experience. It provides a nice UI for GraphQL specific debugging sessions, but it doesn't break the "network" tab of Dev Tools. If you want to use apollo-client without its dev tools, you're no worse off than you were before adopting apollo-client. But you do gain something if you choose to use them.
  - spion 6y ago
    React used to be simple, but now its indeed pretty much "impenetrable". Hooks are a strange API. Timeslicing and suspense add a lot of complexety for the benefit of very few. The processes for hooks-like funcitonality (algebraic effects) are supposed to be happening at TC39 (ESNext) level, but I can't see anything going on on that front; instead we have workaround hacks to make the API "look" like algebraic effects. Things just need to improve there, one way or another...
nsonha 6y ago
not a good example, knowing how things work is not a reason not to use debugger or similar tools
diob 6y ago
Honest question though, what abstraction do you use in place of React? I don't disagree that it's pretty obtuse, despite loving working in it. I miss being able to look up the source of Backbone.js and gain a real understanding of why something was happening. Maybe I'll get to that point in React, but it seems much harder to grasp what the source is doing.
- axelf4 6y ago
  I consider part of the blame to lie with React. The React source code structure is pretty obtuse. Compare that to the Inferno.js source code which is easy to understand and navigate for anyone familiar with how a VDOM library should work.
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    this, I understood how react is supposed to be used by reading the preact codebase
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  I just write JavaScript? The concepts of Basecamp's Hotwire[0] are particularly simple and elegant enough for the 1% of stuff that isn't just a static page or can't be solved in a single JS function. I've never been like "boy I really need a virtual DOM" so I guess I've never really seen the appeal of React. It just seems like a bundle of complexity, obfuscation and anti-patterns. 0: https://hotwire.dev https://hotwire.dev
  - amenod 6y ago
    While you don't _need_ React (or a similar powerful library / framework), it takes one's productivity to a whole different level. I have a feeling that you have already made up your mind not to like it, but if you ever give it a fair try, you might find it useful for some projects. It is very complex under the hood, of course, so if you want to have total control you might need to dig into the internals. But to a casual user it gives a very nice abstraction, very powerful, easy to use (granted - and abuse) and performant. The thing that sold it for me is the declarative programming. You have state, state translates to rendering... and that's pretty much it. Compared to thinking about transitions in native JS (or jQuery or whatever) it is like night and day in any non-trivial project.
nawgz 6y ago
> Okay but this thing boils down to just JavaScript right I am not really sure I understand this stance. My JavaScript ultimately just boils down to C++, no? C++ ultimately just boils down to machine code, right? Yet you clearly wouldn't try to tackle those things at that layer. Without more statements on what this bug was and why there weren't error messages or why it was so hard to recreate you felt you could only look at it thru a debugger, I really completely fail to understand your point. > Abstractions are supposed to remove complexity React does remove a ton of complexity from writing frontend - good luck composing HTML & JS components with just jQuery - but in exchange it also introduces some, of course. So they make that new and different complexity easier to handle with their dev tools. > I swore off abstractions ... [that] treat users like morons I really have a tough time to read this charitably. What on earth are you on about?
azangru 6y ago
> I recently was trying to diagnose a bug with React state in someone else's project. Everything I found said "install the React extension" Really curious what you mean by that. There are two possible Chrome (not React) extensions for dev tools that I can think of — one is the "official" extension by React core team that helps visualise components better and also helps understand why they may have rerendered. The other is a redux extension that's very helpful to inspect all the actions that were dispatched against the store and the changes they caused in the redux state. None sounds like what you are describing. Bugs with React state should be easy to diagnose just with a handful of console logs.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lr4444lr 6y ago
You're not wrong, but I think you're missing the value of React: the simplicity is not having to worry about the correctness or efficiency of your render engine. You get to go back to a more declarative way of writing code that comes with a modular composable style. There's a cost to pay for this: surrendering control (and easy insight) of the DOM you once knew to React's core logic. You do get a variety of callbacks to hook into, and I always encourage people to learn more about their frameworks, but you're not buying a set of convenience methods like you were with jQuery: this is effectively an interpreter between your data and its rendering.
schwartzworld 6y ago
The react extension is pretty powerful. You can work without it, but it enables debugging techniques that would be much harder without it.
flippinburgers 6y ago
I have a deep love/hate relationship with react so I largely agree with you. The last time I used the extension, it was obnoxious to use to try to find "state" within the page. Using redux makes things easier to debug from this perspective but you do need yet another extension for that too... I really think this is a sign of young engineers who have no experience with older approaches just memorizing "how things are done". They have no perspective on the tooling or experience.
apatheticonion 6y ago
Try to implement a website without React or Angular/Vue. When you hit your first list of elements and need to rerender the contents of just one of the elements, you will begin writing your own React. If you try to implement some kind of "two way databinding", you will first create React, then create Angular. However, unreadable and disorganised code can be written at any abstraction level. I have found React projects to be particularly hideous due to the fixation engineers have for tools like Redux. Angular tends to be a bit better because it's got some decent software design principles built in - but you know front end engineers. Any project with ngrx is a write off from an readability perspective. Isomorphic applications are also a meme that kill readability. I write most of my personal projects using Preact and some kind of reactivity helper (RIP `Object.observe`, I grieve for you).

nicoburns 6y ago

When you're trying to debug a JavaScript error do you use Chrome's built in JavaScript debugger, or do run Chrome in GDB? Or perhaps you get out your oscilloscope and try attaching it to your CPU? Debugging at multiple levels of abstraction is nothing new. The fact that there are debugging tools at the React level does reduce complexity. It means you don't need to understand the details of how React is implemented. You can just think in terms of React concepts (which are quite straightforward and have excellent documentation).

agentwiggles 6y ago
I got a good chuckle at the silliness of the mental image of hooking up a scope to diagnose a JS error. Thanks for the laugh. (tl;dr: lol)
xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
Is React language or a library? Does it have its own virtual machine? If I'm debugging something that compiles down to assembly, sure, I can use GDB. Why shouldn't I be able to use the JavaScript debugger? Why does React go though so much effort to obfuscate its internals to such an extreme? There are a million other JavaScript libraries that do not have this problem, for what it's worth. > It means you don't need to understand the details of how React is implemented. Isn't this the topic of discussion? Why shouldn't it be as simple as "React stores state in this variable" and I can just poke at it like any other variable? Abstractions are great, but they all leak eventually. Being able to see through the abstraction is immensely valuable, regardless of where you are in the stack. Don't confuse simplicity for its pernicious cousin convenience, which usually does not actually reduce complexity, but heralds it.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  > Is React language or a library? Does it have its own virtual machine? It's a library, but it does provide a runtime. As such it IMO makes sense that it would have it's own debugging tools. This is pretty common for complex frameworks. Other frontend frameworks like Angular and Vue do it. As do backend frameworks like Rails and Laravel. Or as another example you could look at Unity (the game framework). You can still use the JavaScript debugger, and I do all the time with React code. But for React specific concepts the React specific tools provide a better experience. > Why does React go though so much effort to obfuscate its internals to such an extreme? There are a million other JavaScript libraries that do not have this problem, for what it's worth. It doesn't do it intentionally. It's internals are somewhat complex for performance reasons. Which other JavaScript libraries allow you to inspect their current state with the JavaScript debugger? That's what the React dev tools give you: state inspection. IME, lot's libraries make inspecting that quite difficult (unless they're using global variables). > Why shouldn't it be as simple as "React stores state in this variable" and I can just poke at it like any other variable? The problem is that you can't typically poke variables using the JavaScript debugger. To do so you need to get a reference to the variable. And you can only reasonably do that for globals. > Abstractions are great, but they all leak eventually. Being able to see through the abstraction is immensely valuable, regardless of where you are in the stack. I guess I've just never hit into the limitations of the React abstraction (and I've done pretty complex things). Nor have I ever hit a bug in the implementation. To me it's like my database or my filesystem: sure it's great to be able to peak under the hood if I really need to, but 99.9% of the time I'm super glad that I don't. I've had much worse experiences with Angular (1 and 2) where I frequently felt like the abstraction was leaking a lot.
  - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
    As someone who works on and fixes bugs in databases and filesystems, perhaps we don't look at things the same way.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      Well, parent can find an error in a React app with a standard JS debugger, you can find an error in databases and filesystems with gdb or some such, but not vice versa. Can be as simple as that: familiarity.
jorblumesea 6y ago
Debugging a popular library is not at all equivalent to those layers of abstraction. This argument is so flawed it almost feels malicious.
TechBro8615 6y ago
It's a bit unfair to expect a framework not to provide new abstractions. That's required almost by definition. In React's defense, it's far from "impenetrable." In fact, its API exposes less than a dozen attachment points (considering render + lifecycle methods or their hook equivalents). It's a small and stable interface on top of a simple tree structure and an intuitive reconciliation algorithm. Most of the time you don't even need to reason about its logic, but when you do, it's understandable and debuggable. I'm also skeptical that we should consider framework-specific dev tools as evidence of an impenetrable abstraction. As long as the tools strictly enhance the debugging experience, they are a feature, not a smell. They are evidence of a problem when they only exist because it's impossible to debug the API without them. For example, Apollo Dev Tools "strictly enhances" the debugging experience. It provides a nice UI for GraphQL specific debugging sessions, but it doesn't break the "network" tab of Dev Tools. If you want to use apollo-client without its dev tools, you're no worse off than you were before adopting apollo-client. But you do gain something if you choose to use them.
- spion 6y ago
  React used to be simple, but now its indeed pretty much "impenetrable". Hooks are a strange API. Timeslicing and suspense add a lot of complexety for the benefit of very few. The processes for hooks-like funcitonality (algebraic effects) are supposed to be happening at TC39 (ESNext) level, but I can't see anything going on on that front; instead we have workaround hacks to make the API "look" like algebraic effects. Things just need to improve there, one way or another...

nsonha 6y ago

not a good example, knowing how things work is not a reason not to use debugger or similar tools

diob 6y ago

Honest question though, what abstraction do you use in place of React? I don't disagree that it's pretty obtuse, despite loving working in it. I miss being able to look up the source of Backbone.js and gain a real understanding of why something was happening. Maybe I'll get to that point in React, but it seems much harder to grasp what the source is doing.

axelf4 6y ago
I consider part of the blame to lie with React. The React source code structure is pretty obtuse. Compare that to the Inferno.js source code which is easy to understand and navigate for anyone familiar with how a VDOM library should work.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  this, I understood how react is supposed to be used by reading the preact codebase
xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
I just write JavaScript? The concepts of Basecamp's Hotwire[0] are particularly simple and elegant enough for the 1% of stuff that isn't just a static page or can't be solved in a single JS function. I've never been like "boy I really need a virtual DOM" so I guess I've never really seen the appeal of React. It just seems like a bundle of complexity, obfuscation and anti-patterns. 0: https://hotwire.dev https://hotwire.dev
- amenod 6y ago
  While you don't _need_ React (or a similar powerful library / framework), it takes one's productivity to a whole different level. I have a feeling that you have already made up your mind not to like it, but if you ever give it a fair try, you might find it useful for some projects. It is very complex under the hood, of course, so if you want to have total control you might need to dig into the internals. But to a casual user it gives a very nice abstraction, very powerful, easy to use (granted - and abuse) and performant. The thing that sold it for me is the declarative programming. You have state, state translates to rendering... and that's pretty much it. Compared to thinking about transitions in native JS (or jQuery or whatever) it is like night and day in any non-trivial project.

nawgz 6y ago

> Okay but this thing boils down to just JavaScript right I am not really sure I understand this stance. My JavaScript ultimately just boils down to C++, no? C++ ultimately just boils down to machine code, right? Yet you clearly wouldn't try to tackle those things at that layer. Without more statements on what this bug was and why there weren't error messages or why it was so hard to recreate you felt you could only look at it thru a debugger, I really completely fail to understand your point. > Abstractions are supposed to remove complexity React does remove a ton of complexity from writing frontend - good luck composing HTML & JS components with just jQuery - but in exchange it also introduces some, of course. So they make that new and different complexity easier to handle with their dev tools. > I swore off abstractions ... [that] treat users like morons I really have a tough time to read this charitably. What on earth are you on about?

azangru 6y ago

> I recently was trying to diagnose a bug with React state in someone else's project. Everything I found said "install the React extension" Really curious what you mean by that. There are two possible Chrome (not React) extensions for dev tools that I can think of — one is the "official" extension by React core team that helps visualise components better and also helps understand why they may have rerendered. The other is a redux extension that's very helpful to inspect all the actions that were dispatched against the store and the changes they caused in the redux state. None sounds like what you are describing. Bugs with React state should be easy to diagnose just with a handful of console logs.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lr4444lr 6y ago

You're not wrong, but I think you're missing the value of React: the simplicity is not having to worry about the correctness or efficiency of your render engine. You get to go back to a more declarative way of writing code that comes with a modular composable style. There's a cost to pay for this: surrendering control (and easy insight) of the DOM you once knew to React's core logic. You do get a variety of callbacks to hook into, and I always encourage people to learn more about their frameworks, but you're not buying a set of convenience methods like you were with jQuery: this is effectively an interpreter between your data and its rendering.

schwartzworld 6y ago

The react extension is pretty powerful. You can work without it, but it enables debugging techniques that would be much harder without it.

flippinburgers 6y ago

I have a deep love/hate relationship with react so I largely agree with you. The last time I used the extension, it was obnoxious to use to try to find "state" within the page. Using redux makes things easier to debug from this perspective but you do need yet another extension for that too... I really think this is a sign of young engineers who have no experience with older approaches just memorizing "how things are done". They have no perspective on the tooling or experience.

apatheticonion 6y ago

Try to implement a website without React or Angular/Vue. When you hit your first list of elements and need to rerender the contents of just one of the elements, you will begin writing your own React. If you try to implement some kind of "two way databinding", you will first create React, then create Angular. However, unreadable and disorganised code can be written at any abstraction level. I have found React projects to be particularly hideous due to the fixation engineers have for tools like Redux. Angular tends to be a bit better because it's got some decent software design principles built in - but you know front end engineers. Any project with ngrx is a write off from an readability perspective. Isomorphic applications are also a meme that kill readability. I write most of my personal projects using Preact and some kind of reactivity helper (RIP `Object.observe`, I grieve for you).