I'm not a fan of hooks, really -- it feels like a big black box. I tried to find the source code, but I wasn't able to grok how it all actually worked. Maybe just me, but hooks are a bit too magic-ey for my tastes.
In order to work, the formula has to follow Dijkstra's admonition about abstraction: "The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise." The implementation of Y can be opaque to users, but it has to be precisely defined on the level that users think about it.
Hooks were not presented this way. There was never a precise definition of hooks presented to users, at least not one that I could find in a succinct form in the documentation. To me, the documentation amounted to a handful of examples and a couple of rules to follow, and you were supposed to pattern-match your way to success, without any precise definition to fall back on when you were uncertain.
Hooks are the kind of complex technical idea, which some developers (a certain Mr Abramov) find interesting.
However "complicated and interesting for navel-gazers" are normally rather negative characteristics in tools. Tools which are "reasonably simple, predictable, easy to reason about and easy to compose" are far more productive.
It may have changed since then, but hooks were basically just weird shitty methods & properties with silly non-standard declaration syntax and totally bizarre access/invocation rules, in a language that already had fairly normal objects & methods and all that.