Hacker News Reader

I don't dig what they're doing, but I do kind of like the idea of a deconstructed getter/setter:

[ get, set ] = getterSetter(defaultValue)

as a wrapper around some stateful, immutable value (mutating the result of the get won't be tracked, that is)

That's pretty much what useState does. (or maybe you were already saying you liked that -- sorry, if that's what you meant) The only difference being that the "getter" has already been "executed" in a way: useState returns a value and a setter. Changing the value won't get tracked, and a call to the setter will overwrite the old value and re-render.

Yeah -- I'm saying it's dubious that there's magic here "doing the setState queue for you" -- notice the function call isn't bound and there's no passing of "this", so it's gotta' got some magic under the hood with some global context.

I do, however, like the concept for the react style of render -- being able to grab a getter/setter from that is awesome. They can remove the magic by simply doing:

const [getter, setter] = this.useState(...)

It's nothing more than React already knowing exactly _which_ component it's working on rendering. See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18306957

Reply on news.ycombinator.com