The problem with the JS class representation is that people already understand what classes and instances are, and that leads to incorrect inferences about how React is working. In addition to better-organized code, the hooks abstraction is partly aimed at preventing people from making those wrong inferences. This also explains why they are uncomfortable compared to classes and functions — the point is that was a false comfort because those representations are misleading.
Dan Abramov calls hooks a "missing primitive":
"Why are these models insufficient to describe React? “Pure function” model doesn’t describe local state which is an essential React feature. “Class” model doesn’t explain pure-ish render, disawoving inheritance, lack of direct instantiation, and “receiving” props.
What is a component? Why do you start writing it one way and then have to convert into another way? Why is it “like A but also like B”? Because it’s neither. It’s a thing of its own. A stateful function with effects. Your language just doesn’t have a primitive to express it.
That’s what Hooks are. Those missing primitives. They are library-level but conceptually they are part of the “React language”. Hence the language-like “rules”.
They could be syntax. They would be in Eff or Koka. But the benefits are not worth the friction it creates in JS."
https://twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/1093696560280596491