1) That's so funny cuz I was literally laying in bed last night pondering this same issue - but from a more theoretical standpoint. I've had it drilled into me from my earliest days as a programmer that:
A function does one thing, and does it well.
It's one of the simplest, and most powerful, concepts for writing better code. When reviewing code with other senior devs, you'll almost never get any argument about: "I broke this code up into separate functions that each do a specific piece of the work."
But functional components (especially those with Hooks) are the antithesis of this incredibly basic programming concept. JS purists start to get an epileptic fit whenever they see that dirty nasty 'class' keyword in someone's code. They start climbing up on their functional-programming lectern. They start to sound as though they alone are responsible for the holy sanctity of the language.
Then they create a functional component that itself contains half a dozen other functions. And it uses state. And context. And handles display. And it provides post-rendering with useEffect.
And... this doesn't seem to bother any of the "purists" who are so affronted by the mere sight of the class keyword.
I agree about some hooks being much nicer than others and feel natural while some feel straight out forced (probably in the name of replacing classes completely as you said). I think it is fair to call the original functional components pure functions. The get props and input and emit jsx (always the same jsx given the same props). You could, in theory, do side effects inside (like making an ajax call) but that would result in terrible performance and wasn't the intent.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
1) That's so funny cuz I was literally laying in bed last night pondering this same issue - but from a more theoretical standpoint. I've had it drilled into me from my earliest days as a programmer that:
It's one of the simplest, and most powerful, concepts for writing better code. When reviewing code with other senior devs, you'll almost never get any argument about: "I broke this code up into separate functions that each do a specific piece of the work."
But functional components (especially those with Hooks) are the antithesis of this incredibly basic programming concept. JS purists start to get an epileptic fit whenever they see that dirty nasty 'class' keyword in someone's code. They start climbing up on their functional-programming lectern. They start to sound as though they alone are responsible for the holy sanctity of the language.
Then they create a functional component that itself contains half a dozen other functions. And it uses state. And context. And handles display. And it provides post-rendering with
useEffect.And... this doesn't seem to bother any of the "purists" who are so affronted by the mere sight of the
classkeyword.I agree about some hooks being much nicer than others and feel natural while some feel straight out forced (probably in the name of replacing classes completely as you said). I think it is fair to call the original functional components pure functions. The get props and input and emit jsx (always the same jsx given the same props). You could, in theory, do side effects inside (like making an ajax call) but that would result in terrible performance and wasn't the intent.