Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I remember when you had to choose between flux, redux, alt, reflux, flummox, fluxible, fluxxor, marty.js, fynx, MacFly, DeLorean.js, fluxify, fluxury, exim, fluxtore, Redx, fluxx... (no I'm not making those names up: https://github.com/kriasoft/react-starter-kit/issues/22)

Every single time somethings come up, in the JS word, they try to repeat one of the mistakes from the past and completly ignore everyone else solutions and experience. It's like a compulsion.

In a year or two, your dependancies will be a representative sample of all permutations of those solutions, and will have to be maintained in that state forever, incompatible, or abandonned. You'll open some of them, trying to fix it, but you'll notice they all use different coding style, best practices, libs, and tooling. The dev that fought you in comments saying it would be fine is nowhere to be found now.

Most JS devs don't care. They don't maintain their stuff. Appart from the stuff that get famous because made by great coders (no matter the language), most projects die silently. There is a terrible graveyard hidden behind the corporate wall. Java, C++, Python and even Ruby projects are standing well and alive, next to the countless bodies of the last generation of JS frankeinstein monsters that were hype-sold to upper management to create something that could have been done in PHP 3.

Then a new stuff will arrive in the JS space, with again the potential of creating more confusion, more technical debt. You will raise your voice, and the JS community will scream back at you that you don't know what's good, you want to live with cavemen, and everything is great. They will get angry, and never see any problem.

Then rince and repeat.

That, or you can continue to use redux, which has existed since 2015, is mature, and still by far the most widely used state management system for react.

Redux, made for very large scale applications. Most companies shouldn't use redux at all, just as Dan Abramov said several times that you probably don't need it.

For unknown reasons most front-end developers don't wanna hear that and love to start with mega complexity and boilerplate where just a simple flux store or a library like 'unstated' would suffice. Anything leaner than redux is very welcome for the average companies web app imao.

> Redux, made for very large scale applications. Most companies shouldn't use redux at all, just as Dan Abramov said several times that you probably don't need it.

As per my own comments, I agree strongly.

> For unknown reasons most front-end developers don't wanna hear that and love to start with mega complexity and boilerplate where just a simple flux store or a library like 'unstated' would suffice.

Not unknown, no. Because FB promoted Flux like it was something magical and never seen before, talked about store without providing best practices or reference implementations, and so many store implementations came out at the same time. And most tutorials, not knowing exactly what to recommand to provide some state to your tiny app, started all to promote one store or another. So people though it was mandatory.

It's like with react tutorials.

When I teach react, I make sure people start by just dropping a script tag, and use createElement. No JSX. No webpack. Most of the page is even static HTML.

Only once they got the basics covered, I build on that up to abstractions, tooling, best practices, etc.

That's not what you read online. Online, people drop some magic lines and say "see how this todo list example is easy ?", then let you die here.

I agree with you in terms of learning React. Not sure I agree in terms of app size. Yes, there's some boilerplate associated with Redux. But it's pretty simple, and I find the "one way data flow" model really does simplify thinking about how state transitions work, in a way that is beneficial even for small apps.

Redux does come with boilerplate, but I don't agree that's it's complex. IMO it's one of the simplest ways of managing state. I find it's useful for things like user authentication details which are global-state that doesn't correspond to a specific part of the app. And even small apps tend to have this.

Unstated (last commit from Summer '18) seems unmaintained. Is there anything more current you would recommend?

Mobx. It's not small, but it is easier than redux.

MobX is similarly mature, easily as powerful, yet much simpler / easier to reason about.

Agreed. Or vue.

All in all, reactive programming is easier, because it doesn't require you to make all the plumping to get running water.

Yes, except when redux came out, nobody could know since there was so many competitors.

It tooks years to sort that out.

Yes except we spent years having so many projects crashing under the complexity of using a store, most juniors being unable to produce decent code and managing the numerous layers of indirection.

Yes except we learned later, hey, a store is not required for most projects. You totally should use react without a store for your little service. But we won't give you a best practice to do so.

Yes except for a single little incremental counter in redux, tutorials invite your to create a store, an action factory, and action dispatcher, an adapter to connect them, and then use a provider to pass the store. To escape this madness, you may use, yet another abstraction du jour, or just write hundreds of lines of boiler plate. Or do it another way, hoping it's alright, and creating yet another differently styled code base.

Yes except mobx or vue are way easier to use. Oh but they are yet another tool to learn and manage.

So you suggest people don't innovate? I think what you say about redux is FUD. Sure, a bunch of libraries came out at the same time as it trying to solve the same issue. Redux happened to get the most traction and as such most people use it. It works fine. Approaches to it have changed as people have found issues with approaches - now people are fine with being chill and using internal state for some things, and the redux store where it makes sense. It isn't as bad as you make everything seem. Hooks are a novel way of sharing logic between components, and people are trying them because it seems like a cool idea - if it works it will stick.

Here it is, the angry JS dev saying I don't see things clearly and that the current situation in fine. Hello my friend. We meet again, today. We'll meet again tomorrow. Then next year.

Rince and repeat, I said.

Well, it's not an easy problem. I've been working on user interfaces for around 14 years, in several languages and platforms.

React is the first time I feel like we've actually hit something good. It's still not fully there, but it's the closest it has felt to that so far.

State management is messy, that's clearly an area where the problem still hasn't been solved. The main issue is that state means too much really. There's your (typically) main source of truth: the database. Then your server may maintain some state (although nowadays this is not common, thankfully). Then there's the frontend app state, which loads from the server/db, and may or may not staty up to date.

On top of this you have temporary frontend state (unsaved changes), and finally pure UI state (hovering things, "show more"... )

Managing all of this is extremely difficult. Graphql with the appropriate frontend library for example is revolutionary in some ways, but a major difference in backend architecture, which isn't easy to reason about (fine grained entitlements, mutations & side effects such as notification emails, report generation.. are not easy)

Anyway, my point is that I understand your frustration with how everything's outdated too quickly, and how in the past we had stable frameworks or languages. But I feel the reason is that we are actually in a transition period, and making a lot of progress really fast. Hopefully the outcome of these messy years is a Standard™ way to define a UI, it's state, and it's interactions with an API, in an e2e type-safe, testable manner. One can dream right?

We agree on the fact it's a hard problem and i don't label react as a bad product. Plus, it's a necessary one given the way the internet is evolving.

> It tooks years to sort that out.

Yep, maturing takes time - duh.

Maturing is good. Marketting beta products as solutions to the problems you have right now isn't.

This problem doesn't exist in the PHP, Python or Ruby communities.

We get incremental improvements, sometimes a few innovative contenders show up, we evaluate it, then a winner appear, generally under a year.

With JS it's:

- a new wild pokemon appears !

- quick, everybody make 200 new pokeball models and throw them at it

- spend 3 years sorting said pokeballs, while the pokemon disapears

> quick, everybody make 200 new pokeball models and throw them at it

I mean, it's not like this is forced upon you. You're free to continue to use Backbone or Knockout or Ember if you want to. Angular 1.x has been replaced with Angular 2 (and I think the Angular team was rightly criticised by how they managed this transition), but most other popular frameworks are still around.

Of course, for new projects you may want to pick a newer framework if you believe it offers significant improvements over what came before. For me, React was clearly in this category. And yes, there are lot of people who chase the latest shiny thing, even if it is new and unproven. But that doesn't mean there aren't also stable, proven stacks.

Nobody lives in a vacuum, and there are many reasons for not being able to choose the techs you will have to work with.

In fact, the main reason is that there is no current other client side web language than Javascript.

We don't use JS because it's great. It's a badly designed languages, and half of the stack we use are hacks to make it usable. We use it because there is nothing else.

"Every single time somethings come up, in the JS word, they try to repeat one of the mistakes from the past and completely ignore everyone else solutions and experience."

I agree with the sentiment so just out of curiosity: what are these existing solutions that people should look at and take lessons from?

A few on the top of my head:

- Clear best pratices provided with tools. Do you know how to code a react project ? The person next to you has a different answer.

- Reference implementations. We heard about the Flux pattern and the idea of stores for a long time before understanding concretly what it meant. And then pouf, 200 store and routing implementations differing in opinion, and no voice or advice about what to use and how.

- Integrations layers. Everything is a lib gets old really fast. And "look how redux is simple" as well. Assembly is simple but I don't code my website with it.

- Deprecation policies and clear migration path. Webpack was weird, quirky and badly documented. But the worst thing was that once you figured out something that works, a new version broke compat.

- Avoid dependancy creep. When a dependancy has more package metadata than code, there is a problem.

- Don't encourage a cowboy culture. It's great anybody can start coding in JS in an afternoon. It's not great that after a month the same person market his lib like it's the best thing ever and production ready.

- Documentation that makes sense. People explaining a new tool by showing you something webpack based or in in jsfiddle is not doing his job properly.

- Api best practices and design patterns have existed for a long time. Use them. KISS. DRY. Don't break user land. Principle of least surprise.

- Don't rename things that have had conventional names for decades. "Flux is a not MVC" is a lie. It's mono-directional, it encourages single instance immutable model. But it's still MVC. Most people looked for very complicated answer to what is flux because of that. And who name a lifecycle method "componentWillUpdate()" ? "onUpdate()" and "onPostUpdate()" are the legacy jargon. And then "UNSAFE_componentWillUpdate()" ? Really ? Like really ? Never heard of warnings ? Using the JS className instead of the HTML class in JSX is also still amazing me, not in a good way.

- Don't give the same name to 2 different products. Looking at you angular. Also SemVer is not a bad word, I and don't want your weird release name. That double the suff I potentially could google for.

- Conventions are nice. They should not replace configuration, but they complement it very well.

- There is such a thing as a "typical use case" for many tools. You should design for that, and if it's not possible for you, build a layer of top for that. Building facebook is not "a typical use case". Passing data from a children to a parent after a click and a preventDefault is. Why is the later so damn verbose ? Why did have I to google it ?

- Scaling down is as important as scaling up. Make simple things easy and complicated things possible, not the contrary.

- New is not always better, sorry barney stinson. Satisfying users with working software is. If you make or use something new, you should evaluate the cost for you and others before going "oh shiny !".

There are many others, but I don't feel happy writting this, so I'm going to stop.

You’re comparing entire languages to libraries made for a specific task within one language.

No, I compare language ecosystems, and cultures.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact