Hacker News Reader

Comment by Touche | Hacker News Reader

I'm aware of these. But React gets all of the attention despite its warts like local component state or encouraging singletons for Flux.

View on HN

And those singletons will bite you hard the moment you try to do server-side rendering because you will now have state shared across sessions.

The approach that raynos/mercury takes where state is fully decoupled from layout/rendering is the way to go. In mercury, all the render functions are composed together to make one large pure function. You give it the current state and it deterministically will always render the same layout. So much better than the react approach. Furthermore, the complete decoupling from the rendering functions and the reliance on using bijective lenses with shallow copying means you get time travel debugging for free (i.e. undo redo is available right out of the box)

https://github.com/Raynos/mercury

I discovered React after using Om, and I believe that Mercury comes with a lot of good practices enabled by default. But it's technically possible to achieve the exact same 'decoupled-state-pure-shallow-etc' using React. It's just not turned on by default and some additional boilerplate is needed, so it's harder to achieve this in React. The only reason I use React instead of Mercury is that React is battle-tested. No amount of testing can replace the real-world situations.I choose a path of higher resistance because I trust React most (due to it's popularity and usage), even though Mercury is better in theory. Ultimately it's a pattern, and that pattern is associated with a level of abstraction over the DOM as well as the way we write code. Mercury and React are two examples of this. I would like to see more competition and libraries to choose from, modular DOM abstractions, with declarative UI's and alternative API's and jsx-esc transforms. That'd be awesome IMO.

Agree that singletons for Flux are bad, but they're totally not necessary (e.g. https://github.com/acdlite/flummox). And if you don't like Flux, don't use it. I don't see how that's can be a demerit against React, since they're completely separate things.

React doesn't have a good pattern for passing information up the tree other than Flux. Prior to Flux they told everyone to pass functions through props which is fine up until a certain point but it doesn't scale to large apps. Flux does solve it, and is a generally good idea, but the singleton pattern breaks when applied to the server.

Ah, I see. I don't really agree, because I think the enforced unidirectional data flow is one of the best parts of React, but that's certainly a valid point of view.

I just want to emphasize again that Flux is entirely possible without singletons, and works just as well on the server if you create new instances for every request. Flummox does it, Fluxible does it (at least for stores). It's just a shame Facebook pushed singletons and then everyone followed their lead.

Honestly I think FB put the flux pattern out before that idea had become fully developed looking for feedback from the community. The flux repo explicitly states that none of the examples are used by facebook or even resemble facebook (client-side) code. The dispatcher, which was released months after they announced flux, is the only component in the flux they admit to using. Immediately after it's release (even before the dispatcher) we began writing client-side javascript code based on arbitrary examples meant to demonstrate a concept.

I also think flux's real-world implementation came from the necessity to build React components within pre-built apps, where they simply didn't have the ability to pass down props because they had to create complete separate components.

passing functions through props scales up to large apps fantastically better than any other not-React based approach I've ever used. I've done it.

You can use Om if you like, right? Or Omniscient. Or Morearty.

Not everyone is ready to go into FP-land right now.

React lets you take these decisions yourself.

Whether local state is practical for your team or not.

You must be living in a very different world than mine if you think that compared to its rivals (Angular, Ember, etc), React is somehow “encouraging” local state. Sure you could go more functional than that, but take a look at the mainstream frameworks and you'll see it's such a long way to go, that had React not allowed local state, it would not have gotten adoption at all.

There are going to be lots of different types of frameworks that encourage different patterns all backed by this concept. I'm not saying React is the worst of the bunch but I also don't think it's clearly the best.

All I'm saying is that when people praise React I wish they were really praising what you call "declarative component model".

React is receiving 100% of the attention in this space when imo it should be receiving about 75%.

>All I'm saying is that when people praise React I wish they were really praising what you call "declarative component model".

I long for time when these concepts are boring enough no one thinks of React anymore. Sadly we're not there yet.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it should at least be about 76%.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com