Yeah. I get that. And I think I answered that in my other answer to your comment. To be frank, the only part of my proposed Context API solution that feels a little "weird" or... "off" is the stuffing of those function references into state. I'm not sure if I had to do it that way. But that seemed to be the way that I "had to" do it to get my demo to compile/work. When I tried it without the state-function references, it broke when I tried to invoke a context-based function that resolved to a function that invoked setState().
(Does that make sense?? It's fairly clear in my mind at the moment - but it's one of those concepts that's kinda confusing to try to spell out in text.)
That being said, once I got it working, I didn't necessarily dislike it. On some level, it's almost kinda cool. Cuz, aside from trying to find a better approach to (what is, IMHO) the bloated mess of Redux, I kinda liked the idea that we can (or... have to) explicitly define the functions that are available via the Context API.
I dunno... I could probably be convinced that it's somehow "sub-optimal". Or that it's somehow an "anti-pattern". But, for the time being, it kinda seems like a good thing.
Thanks for all of the replies. We were just replying to one another too quickly so I missed your previous one :)
Maybe I will play with it a bit too (will try to make time). As I probably expressed before, one of my main issues with React (some other frameworks have that too) is its insistence that everything is 'ui related state' and rendering logic. I find this to be thoroughly lacking.
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.
I agree with where state should live. I was saying a function is not state (unless it is dynamically changing). Again, purely semantic point.
Yeah. I get that. And I think I answered that in my other answer to your comment. To be frank, the only part of my proposed Context API solution that feels a little "weird" or... "off" is the stuffing of those function references into state. I'm not sure if I had to do it that way. But that seemed to be the way that I "had to" do it to get my demo to compile/work. When I tried it without the state-function references, it broke when I tried to invoke a context-based function that resolved to a function that invoked
setState().(Does that make sense?? It's fairly clear in my mind at the moment - but it's one of those concepts that's kinda confusing to try to spell out in text.)
That being said, once I got it working, I didn't necessarily dislike it. On some level, it's almost kinda cool. Cuz, aside from trying to find a better approach to (what is, IMHO) the bloated mess of Redux, I kinda liked the idea that we can (or... have to) explicitly define the functions that are available via the Context API.
I dunno... I could probably be convinced that it's somehow "sub-optimal". Or that it's somehow an "anti-pattern". But, for the time being, it kinda seems like a good thing.
Thanks for all of the replies. We were just replying to one another too quickly so I missed your previous one :)
Maybe I will play with it a bit too (will try to make time). As I probably expressed before, one of my main issues with React (some other frameworks have that too) is its insistence that everything is 'ui related state' and rendering logic. I find this to be thoroughly lacking.