Well, I used "fanboys" once in this article - and... that's the particular word you choose to focus on?? Umm... OK. Seems like you get a little sensitive over that word. It's nothing that bothers me.
As for your assessment of useEffect(), the idea that "I just useEffect and React should do it's job about when it will be executed" is... interesting. If you think that useEffect() replaces all of the lifecycle methods in class components, then you apparently weren't using all of the lifecycle methods in class components.
But I'm glad that useEffect() is so useful for you.
I am Software Developer, currently interested in static type languages (TypeScript, Elm, ReScript) mostly in the frontend land, but working actively in Python also. I am available for mentoring.
My point was - in almost every article you make you cannot handle yourself to make a point against functions in React. This article is good, but the part related to functional component has nothing to the point you are making, it's like additional throwing into the article some words against that. No sense in my opinion, you could be saying just that the confusion about the wording of rendering has not disappeared with functions. It's true.
Also in your response you needed to say that probably I didn't use lifecycle if I think hooks can replace it. It's interesting point that React team thinks you can make software by hooks only. How then hooks cannot replace lifecycle?
I am pragmatist myself. I don't like to fall into some technology as the best. But I also don't like constant pointing in something even though it has nothing to the problem.
I see you prefer classes, ok. But there are least the same amount of points against classes in React as for hooks. I prefer hooks that's it. Does it makes me a hook fanboy? If so you are class components fanboy, but I believe you don't feel as one.
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.
Well, I used "fanboys" once in this article - and... that's the particular word you choose to focus on?? Umm... OK. Seems like you get a little sensitive over that word. It's nothing that bothers me.
As for your assessment of
useEffect(), the idea that "I just useEffect and React should do it's job about when it will be executed" is... interesting. If you think thatuseEffect()replaces all of the lifecycle methods in class components, then you apparently weren't using all of the lifecycle methods in class components.But I'm glad that
useEffect()is so useful for you.I appreciate the feedback!
My point was - in almost every article you make you cannot handle yourself to make a point against functions in React. This article is good, but the part related to functional component has nothing to the point you are making, it's like additional throwing into the article some words against that. No sense in my opinion, you could be saying just that the confusion about the wording of rendering has not disappeared with functions. It's true.
Also in your response you needed to say that probably I didn't use lifecycle if I think hooks can replace it. It's interesting point that React team thinks you can make software by hooks only. How then hooks cannot replace lifecycle?
I am pragmatist myself. I don't like to fall into some technology as the best. But I also don't like constant pointing in something even though it has nothing to the problem.
I see you prefer classes, ok. But there are least the same amount of points against classes in React as for hooks. I prefer hooks that's it. Does it makes me a hook fanboy? If so you are class components fanboy, but I believe you don't feel as one.