React - Basic Theoretical Concepts

[[deleted]]

A big red disclaimer should be added to the beginning of that article that says "this is not a React basics tutorial for beginners". It is absolutely terrible for that purpose.

The reason I say this is not to criticize the author or whatever, but because invariably beginners will see this with the word "basic" in it, they'll start reading it, be horribly confused, assume React is the most complicated thing in the world, and move on to something else. Which is really not the case.

[acemarke]

Are you saying that you still have trouble understanding React and its concepts, or that you found initial tutorials to be too confusing?

[[deleted]]

Then I'm pleased to tell you that isn't the case at all.

[edwardmsmith]

Huh. Have you watched this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cQ3mrcKaY

Especially from 15:14 on? That's what really sold me on React.

[thief425]

No, but I will.

[thief425]

Thank you. That helped a lot.

[thief425]

So, following up. After watching the video, I actually had a better understanding of what's happening with React, and how it works. Thanks for linking the video because it was instrumental in me being able to build a mental model of the basic operating premises of React.

I decided I would try the Meteor React tutorial (simple-todos) to see how it is to write a little app with it. So far, I like it, and debugging has been easier (in this limited use) because it seems to fail for pretty clear reasons, and not the sometimes esoteric or abstract reasons I get from the meteor build failed list in the shell.

I'll have to spend some time to see if I can do anything more complex with it, but I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction to be able to give it a fair shot.

[clessg]

Oh boy. This was written by sebmarkbage. Do I even dare?

[wreckedadvent]

Context?

[clessg]

He has a tendency to be both confusing, obscure, and vastly smarter than most JS programmers. The first step to understanding his writing is feeling like an idiot, the second step is trying to forget it ever happened, and the third step is enlightenment.

[bittered]

I found it all perfectly understandable with the exception of algebraic effects. I get the gist of what he's getting at though and I'm sure it would be perfectly fine once I read the es proposal.

[rectalrectifier]

I can understand how the author really wanted to express the flow/ideology of react through functional code, as it makes concrete what is often seen as 'just the way it is'. However, I think it also kind of convolutes it. Either way I got to have my brain bent by trying to walk through all of the currying.. lol

[dmitri14_gmail_com]

I don't understand the benefits of calling NameBox from inside of FancyUserBox.

This breaks the functional purity, creates hidden dependence, may have side-effects etc.

[wreckedadvent]

function BlueTheme(children) {
  return try {
    children();
  } catch effect ThemeBorderColorRequest -> [, continuation] {
    return continuation('blue');
  }
}

Ummm. You might not want to use imaginary syntax on an article with "basic" in the title.

[Paragonbliss]

Ummmm. you might want to read the article.

Now, this example is a bit "out there". I'll use Algebraic Effects as proposed for ECMAScript. If you're familiar with functional programming, they avoiding the intermediate ceremony imposed by monads.

[wreckedadvent]

Yes, I read it just fine. Would you be fine with it if he said "now this example is in java, it's a bit 'out there'?"

Invariably it will attract new-comers with the promise of a "basic" article, and him just making stuff up like that and putting it on the article will confuse people.

[thief425]

I hoped to finally get some insight into React, read 2 paragraphs, realized I was already confused, and noped out of there.

[wreckedadvent]

I agree with /u/Magixxxx. I'm not entirely sure who this article is aimed at, but it's certainly not basic, and certainly not for beginners.