rockerest’s avatarrockerest’s Twitter Archive—№ 11,332

        1. Been having a blast ripping Redux out of every project. One thing I've noticed is that even the simplest implementations require me to stop and trace everything and reread the reducer(s) to understand how to replace it. A sign of TONS of hidden complexity.
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo rockerest’s avatar 2018 Oct 23 Mood -1 🙁
      1. …in reply to @rockerest
        The fact that it's hidden complexity might be okay for you, if you never need to touch it ever again. For me, the hidden complexity always became simply opaque complexity, and the only thing worse than complexity is opaque complexity.
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo rockerest’s avatar 2018 Oct 23 Mood -3 🙁
    1. …in reply to @rockerest
      I've been steadily replacing Redux with a simple fire-and-forget message bus (implemented with Observables, if you must know). It has all of the same utility and none of the complexity. When I need a state, I use one of the many storage mechanisms built into the browser.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo rockerest’s avatar 2018 Oct 23 Mood 0
  1. …in reply to @rockerest
    This is working exceedingly well, and means that state is relegated to storage mechanisms and generic wrappers, while the global communication bus remains it's own thing. Both are re-usable for any purpose, and neither is coupled to any other feature.
    On twitter.com Twitter logo rockerest’s avatar 2018 Oct 23 Mood 0
    1. …in reply to @rockerest
      It's clear that web applications need global message passing to coordinate between components, and it's clear that they need a (per-application) standard way of storing global state. The Flux/Redux pattern ain't it, chief.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo rockerest’s avatar 2018 Oct 23 Mood +2 🙂