Have you ever heard of "Negate the frame, Activate the frame"?
Well, the headline you chose will hearten the faithful and give pause to everyone else. That plus the defensive tone of the article, sabotages the very framework you're championing. In my opinion, you should have have ran it all by Dan or other maintainers before publishing.
More worryingly is your response to the critiques of this thread. If my concerns were so wrongheaded and just so darn disagreeable, shouldn't you have simply ignored them? Or wait and see if they were validated by others?
Unless, if course, I'm giving voice to a suppressed thought, something that is already known but refuses to be known. Maybe that would explain the lashing out. I don't know.
I just don't have the same emotional investment in Redux. All I'm seeing the same worn-out hype-cycle playing again and again.
I've found a nice niche answering people's questions about React and Redux. I spend a lot of time in the Reactiflux chat channels, as well as a variety of other platforms (Reddit, HN, SO, Twitter, etc). I see questions, my natural impulse is to try to respond and answer them.
Dan Abramov and Andrew Clark created Redux, but now both work at Facebook and are no longer active maintainers. Dan handed over the keys to Tim Dorr and myself. While we don't have any formal division of labor, the typical pattern is that Tim takes care of most of the actual code tasks (merging fixes and publishing releases), and I handle most of the docs stuff and interact with people using it.
None of us have any particular veto over what the others do, and I don't see why I should have "run my post by them" before publishing it.
Yes, the article's tone was defensive, because I've been seeing the same questions, concerns, and FUD get tossed around. So, I was trying to answer those questions and clarify the situation. Most of the feedback I've gotten on the post has been quite positive, along the lines of "Thanks for helping clear that up!".
Maybe responding to you was a bad idea. I dunno. I just get frustrated when I see people complain about things without actually trying to make them better. As my mom told me dozens of times growing up: "You've stated the problem, now state the solution".
So, I'm not "lashing out", and I'm not saying your concerns are "wrongheaded". I'm trying to understand what the actual specifics are that you're concerned about, and find out how we can make things better going forward.
> More worryingly, however, is your response to the critiques of this thread. If my concerns were so wrongheaded and just so darn disagreeable, shouldn't you have simply ignored them? Or wait and see if they were validated by others?
I found the response to be quite reasonable, and certainly not worrying.
Why would it be a good idea to ignore people that disagree with you? It seems like it would be better to provide rational counter arguments, in the hopes of starting a useful discussion.
I have used Redux on a few projects, largely due to the hype (I.e., good recommendations from others in the community) surrounding it. Without intending to I ran into several discussions on SO and Github where Dan explained why people may not need redux. I think this is a very nice thing, and I think it is unfair to blame Dan or other developers for not reining in the hype more.
I do agree that the title of the article is a bit alarmist and perhaps counter productive.
I will admit to deliberately choosing an _ever_-so-slightly clickbait-y title to get people's attention :) But given the kinds of questions I've seen thrown around, I think it was legitimate as well.
Ignore concerns, not people. And only if those concerns are objectionable and unvalidated by others.
A good example of how to ignore concerns would be comparing Dan's responses here with that of Acemarke's. Dan's is to-the-point and confident, whereas Acemarke's is... markedly less so.
Really, the issue here is not how one developer communicates but how they communicate as a team. It's obvious that this self-damaging article wasn't formally approved by every Redux stakeholder-- but I also recognize that no one on the team expected for this to happen.
Well, the headline you chose will hearten the faithful and give pause to everyone else. That plus the defensive tone of the article, sabotages the very framework you're championing. In my opinion, you should have have ran it all by Dan or other maintainers before publishing.
More worryingly is your response to the critiques of this thread. If my concerns were so wrongheaded and just so darn disagreeable, shouldn't you have simply ignored them? Or wait and see if they were validated by others?
Unless, if course, I'm giving voice to a suppressed thought, something that is already known but refuses to be known. Maybe that would explain the lashing out. I don't know.
I just don't have the same emotional investment in Redux. All I'm seeing the same worn-out hype-cycle playing again and again.