Looking like, and being like are two different things :) Mobx reminds people (rightfully) of Meteor, Knockout, Angular etc, but when working with it you will see it is quite a different best. Just like Redux will remind people of flux, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't try Redux because e.g. Facebook Flux didn't work out.
Redux doesn't have this, instead libs like reselect fills space.
My experience with redux was frustrating in the way you explained, but once I "got" how to defer all state to reselect instead of trying to do things with reducers it got significantly simpler.
I have referred your links. Thank you btw.
Yes, but they exist to solve very similar problems.
> when I look at mobx I get reminded of managing crazy state trees in ember and why I went to react/redux in the first place.
You may find it feels differently in practice. Because when I look at redux, I get reminded of managing crazy state trees in redux, and why I went to react/mobx in first place. :)
To be sure, Redux has strengths too, and there are tradeoffs. But I don't think that a brief "mobx looks like ember!" really conveys much, and I think the number of people who have been happy after switching from redux to mobx further undercuts such easy dismissals.
Also an important thing to note is that Redux is fundamentally designed to lend itself to one-way data flow with a well-abstracted barrier between global state and your components. Yes, you can use MobX to accomplish the same thing but the pattern is fundamentally less obvious especially for someone new to React.
That's the point I'm contending: Its not ridiculous because its not obvious that its an alternative. And not just an alternative, but a much much simpler alternative for many use cases. I absolutely agree its annoying, and I'll have to be that annoying guy for a while. Because I can't stand seeing people spend time on clever solutions to problems that, with mobx, you may not have.