Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Docs: Redux [FAQ: Organizing State] remove You Might Not Need Redux #4233

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 8, 2021

Conversation

ryota-murakami
Copy link
Contributor

Because this was written at 2016, the content seems like counter part for over engineering with verbosity Boilerplate.

But we are living post Redux-Toolkit,「You Might Not Need Redux」is not tell us the Author's original meant by context lost.

@codesandbox-ci
Copy link

codesandbox-ci bot commented Dec 8, 2021

This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox.

To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA.

Latest deployment of this branch, based on commit 30f46f9:

Sandbox Source
Vanilla Configuration
Vanilla Typescript Configuration

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Dec 8, 2021

✔️ Deploy Preview for redux-docs ready!

🔨 Explore the source changes: 30f46f9

🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/redux-docs/deploys/61b0942c804c0200086ab067

😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-4233--redux-docs.netlify.app

@timdorr
Copy link
Member

timdorr commented Dec 8, 2021

You might not need this blog post.

Thanks!

@timdorr timdorr merged commit 8a73b7a into reduxjs:master Dec 8, 2021
@ryota-murakami ryota-murakami deleted the patch-1 branch December 8, 2021 12:10
@markerikson
Copy link
Contributor

markerikson commented Dec 8, 2021

I... actually would prefer to leave that link in, tbh.

I know it's old, but Dan did write it, and the arguments he made about "tradeoffs" and the use cases he described are still meaningful.

Is there another better way to have that same info in there?

@ryota-murakami
Copy link
Contributor Author

ryota-murakami commented Dec 8, 2021

@markerikson Yeah, I know that feeling. I thought it was great post at the 2017.

I know it's old, but Dan did write it, and the arguments he made about "tradeoffs" and the use cases he described are still meaningful.

I agree with you the post fundamental still correct think.
But why we could have such as opinion? Because we are veteran of Redux(actually your level is god of Redux) so,
I think this is because we can extract and evaluate the essential purpose of this article, taking into account the differences between then and now.

But it's not friendly for new leaner.

original Tradeoff is here.

Redux offers a tradeoff. It asks you to:

 - Describe application state as plain objects and arrays.
 - Describe changes in the system as plain objects.
 - Describe the logic for handling changes as pure functions.

None of these limitations are required to build an app, with or without React. In fact these are pretty strong constraints, and you should think carefully before adopting them even in parts of your app.

These are honestly give us heavy weight code stuff for implementation per feature for trusted/well scale/ keep React Component as a UI library(redux could write out side of Component), mainly.

But now day, Toolkit drastically removed 'tradeoff''s downside pretty well so It has changed 'tradeoff' weight balance since he wrote.
Fortunately core message of the lost still acceptable as a result. Without Dan's evaluation Toolkit era/scene, but the post notting wrong as a result.

I'm glad if Dan had write this theme 2021 version because. Dan has knowledge of Toolkit.

I think achieved original post in your https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links is good move.

nevilm-lt pushed a commit to nevilm-lt/redux that referenced this pull request Apr 22, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants