1. 10

  2. 5

    After reading, I’m not sure I understand why React/Redux is an inferior paradigm.

    An inferior library due to the FB team pushing JSX at the expense of createElement/createFactory boilerplate code? Ok. An inferior library due to the fact that “OOP, classes, callbacks, and this are commonplace” [in official code]? Ok.

    But I’m not seeing much about the paradigm differences. Staltz claims that the React implementation of a certain program took longer than the Cycle implementation. So what? A simple UI would take less time to implement in jQuery than Cycle. Dev time outside of a carefully controlled study (and sometimes even then) is a poor metric.

    Not saying that React is better than Cycle (never heard of Cycle before today), but this post doesn’t seem to address the claim made in its title effectively. And after reading the Cycle frontpage, I’m not even certain what the paradigmatic differences are. Cycle seems to more strictly enforce purity maybe? I delved into the docs a bit and still don’t have a clear picture of the paradigm differences. A very different library, to be sure, but it looks a lot like the paradigm I use with React.

    1. 5

      At the risk of seeming a might cynical and regretfully uncharitable, it might be an inferior library due to the author being the author of the promulgated instance.

    2. 3

      After reading, I have to say, I’m still not clear on why React/Redux is inferior. A lot of the argument seemed to center on personal preferences in nomenclature and syntax, which is totally reasonable but not that compelling.