4 ms·
I'm not exactly sure how hooks are related to OOP. Their design was inspired by 'Algebraic Effects' which are more functional in nature than OO. This gives a g
by joeldo 5y ago
I'm not exactly sure how hooks are related to OOP. Their design was inspired by 'Algebraic Effects' which are more functional in nature than OO.
This gives a good breakdown: https://overreacted.io/algebraic-effects-for-the-rest-of-us/ https://overreacted.io/algebraic-effects-for-the-rest-of-us/
- ianbicking 5y agoAh, that does make more sense, and is a language feature I've often thought about. It's usually just a pattern and not a first class feature, but with many problems as a result (many of which React itself encounters). Lots of use of context managers in Python are for accomplishing this. Smalltalk error handlers are like this (different than try/catch). Or Scheme's with-output-to-file... I got the sense that variables that start and end with stars in Common Lisp are used for this, but I was never clear if it was convention or an actual language feature. I think I'd like it in React too if they just hadn't tried to be so clever.
- SebastianKra 5y agoIsn't this basically the same tradeoff as Contexts vs Prop-Drilling? You could achieve the same effects by passing down callbacks. I thought the reason why this is good for Errors, Themes and Loading (Suspense), is because they're so common, that you can always expect someone up in the hierarchy to consider it, and therefore sacrifice some type safety for less verbosity. The article mentions that "usually the fact that a function can perform an effect would be encoded into its type signature", which is why I don't understand the need in this example.