Thanks

lol

but he needs 30 mins to talk about that

exactly

yep, total true. Give me back 20 minutes

As always with talks like this, you are saying goodbye to using useEffect inside of your component code. The fact that useEffect is used elsewhere in the app doesn't change the fact that you are removing it from your component code itself. Abstracting away messy code is good.

​@@anarchoyeasty3908 Then call it "Abstracting useEffect", everybody gets it, show an example of custom hooks and lead into libraries that are better maintained than your custom silly code. The talk/talks would be less confusing ;)

I think he got the problem right: using useEffect to declare asynchronous logic is not scaleable. One solution can be to use things like useQuery which will somewhat simplify that stuff. When using Redux you can also use thunks and saga to avoid chains of useEffect calls.

​@@anarchoyeasty3908 "Abstracting away messy code is good." Messy code will always be messy doesn't matter if its abstracted away.

@@wlockuz4467 But it's not messy it's just a bit complicated or voluminous. Abstracting that away makes it less complicated and less voluminous.

Absolutely! I'm a full stack mostly FE dev in React and am not a fan of React and how complex apps need to be constructed. I've worked in other FE frameworks that seem to be better but are not as popular as React... hopefully that changes soon.

@@michaelm106 I can relate to this. Also, while React seems good in theory, I'm yet to see a project, which is not a mess (or tend towards being that). I don't know the reason of this, and maybe it's just my poor experience, so I don't want to generalize, ofc.

"What matters is being popular" 😍😍😍😍

@@mudaquetoca 1 million flies can't be wrong, right

@@SourceHades This is the way! Yes, as I said React pretty much looks good on paper, but not 2 years into a rushed project with 30 devs 😭

agreed.. previous talk look like XState promo

and no ROUND looking brackets (that are actually [] square brackets ) like in the last talt

XState is fantastic though. You really should try it out.

this one looks like a promo talk as well.

If you have a return statement before a hook, you'll get that error. Make sure all your return statements come after all hooks

@@1OJosh Which would mean that I had a condition which decides if the return gets ecevuted or not but there is no conditon or return like I already mentioned in my comment above.

@@thejezzi5219 Then maybe you've got a condition before a hook, like if(something) useHook() There has to be something like that somewhere. Are you able to consistently reproduce the error? Are you sure it's definitely happening at random? Could be an external package causing the error as well, I'd check them too

i knew that there was something wrong when that shady dude tried to sell me his javascript course for 15$ 3 years ago, i can't believe how much i've sacrificed for money 😭.

You can do whatever you want, but react-query (while yes, another library) is great for this purpose--even if there weren't anything wrong with useEffect.

​@@dweblinveltz5035 ​ It can be the best library ever, but the problem is not using react-query; The problem is React creating the useEffect hook to handle effects such as data fetching, then discouraging this use case without providing a React-only alternative. So, according to the new React "rules", the only viable way to perform a simple fetch call is by using another library.

@@dweblinveltz5035 The use hook is the alternative, but unfortunately it’s not available yet =( If they had released the use hook before “deprecating” the useEffect it would have been great.

@@theindieprogrammer For simple fetch, I usually create custom hook (with useEffect in side) to handle data fetching. But yeah, it is much simpler to use something like react-query to do that job for you.

which I won't watch anytime soon 😆😆

@@DreamersLab 😂😂😂 I will I am very disciplined !

I wasn’t expecting that my comment would make people 😂

@@codewithguillaume I add videos to watch later all the time but hardly remember to watch them again. The only time I watch again is when I am stuck.

@@DreamersLab interesting I think it’s how it works for a lot of people - for me I never have videos to watch - in even struggle to find new ones and get frustrated haha

front-end development in a nutshell

Please edit your comment, you forgot the quote marks around "innovating".

@@zen-ventzi-marinov Understandable, but the innovations in the last two years are basically are happening on branches of branches of a branch. Nothing Major, and they are just selling different (shovels in this startup golden rush.) It's just annoying that the same mentors and teachers we rely on them to help us are turning into sales men who wants to use you without thinking of your time, and money.

@@anazi Couldn't have said it better myself. Very little that is meaningful, and the little meaningful changes taking place(please don't ask me to name them, I can't but for the sake of the argument) are being trumped by all the meaningless changes that we have to keep up with.

@@zen-ventzi-marinov Quote marks implemented. 😂

"And now it's up to all of you guys to slay it"

exactly!

Maybe u should keep playing free fire

From everything I've seen poor use of useeffects comes from devs never bothering to learn how react even works. Then they just complain about hooks. Learn how it works and you won't shoot yourself in the foot and write rubbish. The old docs were bad though, the new beta docs are good

@@ChillAutos I agree, for sure new and better ways come up. I was fine with class based components when they were the thing even though I have seen a few of their downside along the way. Same with hooks, so yeah whatever the technology, you should really have a good understanding of what is going on and how to use it, just as you said so you don't write rubbish or make videos like - why "something" is the wrong way.

Well, it can also be called: progress. That's how we went from 8086 to Core i9 via small deprecative steps over the years.

​@@VortechBand Absolutely! Going for example from class components to hooks and now having further solutions for the "downsides" of useEffect, this can be considered progress. I don't want us to stay with 1 way of doing things and stick to it forever and ever and not make any progress. What I am up against is how things get presented with a lot of hype in a marketing style like "this is the way" because it sounds contrary to as you said progress, it's like well "Eureka" we found the solution that is "THE Solution". I would like something more objective, like "we've seen how this played out and we see this and this issues, that can be remove/minimised if we alter out approach to this".

Technology only eveolves, and That is not a problem. It is how everything is, especially in development.

I’m with you. How could something as simple as fetching data not be possible without a 3rd party library

@@jackhedaya571 React is still in beta, but we the “clever” hipsters use an unfinished beta in production

spoiler alert: They all use useEffect

Exactly! People don't understand useEffect properly but decide to use it anyways then run into problems and call it bad design. As devs its our job to understand the technologies we work closely with.

Sooooo true. I am using RTK Query.

remove redux-saga bro

@@oleksandrfomin326 exactly, I don't known why we shoud use redux when UI state we have Context Api and server state we have react-query/swr

@@tienlx97 I totally agree with you. I really don't understand why we need a single Redux store for multi-state management. They are standalone states in their own component. We are focusing on single-page rendering with minimal state management while Redux asks us to manage states and methods in one store.

Amen to that :)

Became the standard because of Facebook and because people follow what is big and trendy

That is because of strict mode

@@abdulsalammohammed8045 Exactly, not a big deal though, just remove the strict tag.

At the moment, yes, but a future version of React might run useEffect some unknown number of times because the component could sometimes get unmounted and remounted automatically. The point is that you need to change the mental model of how you use useEffect so that you never depend on the component being (un)mounted. Here's a good explanation from a blog post I found: "Such a decision was made by the React team, as in the future, they’d like to add a feature that allows React to add and remove sections of the UI while preserving the state. As it requires components to be resilient to effects being mounted and destroyed multiple times, an additional check has been introduced."

@@SourceHades makes CI/CD so simple and straightforward. /s

React is itself just a view library.

I mean dweb is right it is just a view library.

@@dweblinveltz5035 is a framework marketed as a view library

The primary purpose of framework authors is to lock you into their framework. We were able to build systems before React, and one of the most important lessons to learn is that even the UI is just an I/O device and should be abstracted out of the truly important core logic.

Leading to componentDidMount/componentDidUnmount, useEffect,and Redux Thunks. ALL of which are horrible hard to use designs... I just wish our components could be async functions.. but apparently they've coded themselves into a corner and can only do that on the server....

Well, that's exactly what it is. React is the View in MVC. Fetching data is the responsibility of the Controller, so it checks out.

@@echobucket nextjs now allows you to just use the await keyword

You don’t have to install another frameworks in a library, maybe another framework in this framework, because React is a framework disguised as a library for marketing (and adoption) purposes

@@adrianvmois9426 That's not true, I've been using and watching since 2013. It's a library that's been trying to become a framework for years that's constantly been changing and is still lacking a lot that a framework needs to have. Despite the addition of hooks etc, people still add redux and saga and all kinds of things to be able to work with React properly. It's not a framework disguised as a library, it's a library trying to become a framework. It literally started as just a way to insert JSX into HTML and render that. That's all it used to do. And it still sucks at state management on its own without redux and managing async state without saga. And doesn't even begin to offer a lot of what the other frameworks offer. Some people even think Jquery is a framework, but it's not.

Its not that React is bad, its just that people don't understand how useEffect works and end up using it wrong and complain about it. I think one of the major reasons for it is the shift from class to function components.

The problem is React is a library. It was meant to be a library to create basic UI. UI which works and changes itself based on state. All other stuff like async data fetching, SSR, bundling, routing, etc was not supposed to be in it. It was upto dev to add it however they want. But that of course became complicated, React team is still trying to figure out how to provide these capabilities, while still staying into the relam of library and not turning into a full blown framework. NextJS for e.g. is something I would classify as framework.

@@ishandiablo No, the issue is how they included incorrect examples in the Docs and people started using it. I've literally searched useEffect in reactjs docs and found a "Bad Example of useEffect". No fam, it's just represented badly.

@@wlockuz4467 Yes but if thousands of people are doing it wrong, I think the problem is somewhere else. I'm using React but I feel frustrated about this 'oh we didn't intended this when we introduced hooks' statements.

Sad

Oh trust me, you haven't seen the half of it. Although I prefer hooks, I got to miss the simplicity of componentWillUnmount. Like, ok, the component is about to unmount, so I want to gather such and such information from such and such inner components through references, bundle it up and dispatch it to the state. Can I do that in a useEffect(()=> { .... return ()=>cleanup, []}? No, I cannot because my cleanup has dependencies and the return statement of useEffect(....,[]) will run on unmount only when the state is clean and there are no dependencies, oh, and the inner components are destroyed too. When you get to need something that will run just before the destroy cycle begins, you are left with horrible messy ideas that make your codebase atrocious, horribly atrocious. The React team should give a hook or something that performs exactly like a componentWillUnmount, so people can gather data, do any final stuff they want to do and then let the component go.

React’s declarative data driven aspect has always been about what you see. Some things always have to be imperative, that’s how events work. The beauty of react is that there’s always an escape hatch to let you work around the limitations.

@@Diamonddrake that is NOT how events work. In React I've noticed a lot of developers confuse the mechanics of how React has to work with best practices. Maybe it would be helpful for you to try out another framework sometime.

@@mfpears you are being presumptuous, I am a professional software engineer and I maintain code bases across a variety of frameworks and technologies. Events are by definition imperative. Events hook into JavaScript through callbacks in the browser engine and they do so imperatively. React and react minded libraries hide those details as much as possible.

@@mfpears I watched your video, I feel like the title and angle is a strange approach. None of your 5 examples are reasons why imperative programming is bad, they don't really draw any lines (you can derive state and keep data close to where its used in imperative programming and you the other points are all subjective). A better approach would be suggesting to be more reactive when possible. I like react because I do enjoy reactive programming. But If you limit yourself exclusively to abstractions that follow a paradigm your core language does not then you are forcing yourself to fight against their limitations. My point is there are times when an action can't be reactive, specifically an event. if you want to do something that doesn't depend on state, then to do it reactively you need to make up some state for it to depend on just to make it happen. If you wrap your events in an observerable, it doesn't just become reactive. If that's what you are thinking then I believe your mental model off. Something being imperative isn't bad, its just not always the best choice. When an event happens like a click and you change some state, that is an imperative action, even if you wrap it in a stream listener and use that to derive new state from existing sate. But you def don't want to manually crawl the browser DOM and update divs everywhere manually during an imperative action. Limit your imperative actions to permuting state and invoking effects that are not state based. You can jump though hoops to keep it declarative, or you can write good code that breaks pretend rules sometimes. Re-rendering an entire system because a number changed is a reactive code problem that can be difficult to fix if they are disjointed in the hierarchy and all your code isn't perfect, Just updating the single spot on the page is an imperative solution that its performant and can save the day. There's very few objective truths in programming.

It only happens when you turn on StrictMode... and then it only happens in development. Its not a terrible idea. This talk is kinda jank.

@@mattgreenberg3207 It's a terrible idea because your production build runs differently than development so you need to test your code in both environment to make sure that your app works as intended

Is a rushed and not fully tested library that should be in beta, not in production.

No, Vue is polished and fully tested, not in beta like this garbage.

when items change, the component will re-render itself, so the line which is used to calculate the sum will be executed again.

@@hongyuchen708 yea, when we want component to rerender our first choice is useEffect and forget that state update also makes component rerender.

What? You could dive deep into any feature of anything. Nobody needed to watch this talk in order to use it.

My criticisms about react were always considered boomer talk, but people drank the react koolaid and here we are. It's easily the messiest "modern" framework there is and "nothing" is intuitive or logical about it. The react devs themselves go into tangents in the official documentation about it. And the worst part? The react way has infested other frameworks as well and it's just downright tragic.

@@punsmith - if I could like your comment 1000 times I would. Nail + head. React has become a total unintuitive hot mess; even “experienced” people don’t fully get how this really works and when…and to add more misery, millions of people are writing god knows what using this hot mess of a library (is it a library? Oh no wait, it’s pretending to be only that when really it’s a core “module” for an actual full size framework. But good old Facebook devs couldn’t be bothered to add anything else required to make proper app; like fetching data, routing and so on - they left that hard stuff up to others and now we have a zillion combinations of trying to do the same thing). God help us.

Not incorrect but honestly there are so many ways to do something wrong in every framework

@@DauntingGecko Glad you agree. But I feel one of the biggest gripes is something people seem to "love" react for. JSX. They LOVE going into tangents why it's the only proper way writing your templates, while claiming it is "JUST" Javascript unlike Angular, Vue or Svelte. No. Nonono. JSX is not just Javascript. If it were, you could simply take it and use it anywhere, but you can't. The code has to be transpiled into valid HTML, making it what? Exactly, just another template engine. If one were to say, they enjoy this more, all fine. But people act as if react held no magic and was "pure". Incidentally, react developers began propagating that insane insistence on "purity". Suddenly everything had to be a pure function and anything that looked "declarative" was the true villain and that you should end yourself. You had react developers convulsing at the mention of classes and suddenly the Web was populated by thousands of messily written blogs only to mention how evil and bad classes and OOP was. Only react was pure. Pure JS, pure genius. Also, don't forget how people SUCKED off Dan Abramov for the worst library that ever existed and it will never change my mind. It tied into insane expectation of purity. State. Redux created a monstrous mental model that was an unfeasibly unmaintanable monster without peer and yet you still had people claiming, that it was the only logical way. Why? Because it's for react of course!

Handle it in an event handler outside of the effect.

@@lukafireman oh Okay got you thanks.

Can you elaborate?

@@wlockuz4467 I have a confirmation modal component that accept isDone prop, When the Prop change to true I want to close the modal, useEffect(()=> { if(isDone) { close() } },[isDone, close]) is this can be done without useEffect?

@@moutafatin whatever function is doing the "done" (and setting isDone) can call another function at the end that has the logic you previously put in a useEffect. Maybe then you wont even need isDone?

@@heddshot87 In my use case the isDone prop is just the state of react query, isSuccess

@@moutafatin Is there an onSuccess callback available? That would be a better place to trigger the action than listening to transitions of a state variable

It's React, what do you expect

That's correct, strict mode is only for development mode.

Hooks were optimized to attract new generations of developers that had no experience yet, was optimized for them, but it made it counterintuitive for the experienced developers. They should not just throw hooks in function components because is not correct js. We should bind the hooks from outside to the function components like it was when using redux.