2 ms·
I like the idea of moving that arrow the way he does. Everything else was just less convincing. The real power of React is composable components that are easy
by rattray 11y ago
I like the idea of moving that arrow the way he does.
Everything else was just less convincing. The real power of React is composable components that are easy to think about. I don't think the author really "got" this; if he was building "complex state machines ... and [mixing] multiple concerns in one component", he was just doing it wrong.
I also don't love the idea of stores depending on each other. In my experience, it leads to hard-to-maintain tangled interdependencies, especially on the frontend. I actually tried to use Bacon.js as a Flux replacement because of the reactive philosophy (this article was a source of inspiration), and while it was nice, the purported benefits of Rx fell flat and store interdepencies remained a problem.
Now, I use NuclearJS [0] to avoid store interdependency altogether. It's actually what I was trying to build with Reactive programming, but done better.
[0] https://github.com/optimizely/nuclear-js https://github.com/optimizely/nuclear-js
- mrcwinn 11y agoCompletely agree. Looking at his eventual realization of these ideas, Cycle.js, it's just a complete mess in terms of declarative, easy to understand components. The beauty of React, beyond its simple lifecycle API and virtual DOM, is that you can glance at a component and very quickly reason what it does and how it works. I can't say the same for anything that came out of this article. There's a tendency in JavaScript development especially to overthink, over-engineer, and over-abstract. We're still in the middle of the woods with JavaScript application development. I hope we get out soon!