I don't see anything wrong in negative critique when needed, it's a crucial part of journalism. And there is no need to drop your desire for writing open-source because of criticism on React hooks. Keep it real.
> It's not for assuring that variable cannot change. Please tell me how you'd change a to 1 in this example: const a = 0;
> A deeper evil... for all the hate IE got, at least it didn't try to track and monetise its users nor treated them like idiots No, MS became more cunning and evil, they've moved al those practices to their OS.
Hooks are just a dirty hack, but sold very well. Internally in React the state of a hook is being kept and updated when you call the set function, kinda similar to vtables and context in OOP. There is no other way to do…
I've never increased my productivity by using Typescript, although I really tried very hard to like it. It just keeps bugging me. It's a constant stream of interruptions that force me to please the TS compiler, compared…
I don't see anything wrong in negative critique when needed, it's a crucial part of journalism. And there is no need to drop your desire for writing open-source because of criticism on React hooks. Keep it real.
> It's not for assuring that variable cannot change. Please tell me how you'd change a to 1 in this example: const a = 0;
> A deeper evil... for all the hate IE got, at least it didn't try to track and monetise its users nor treated them like idiots No, MS became more cunning and evil, they've moved al those practices to their OS.
Hooks are just a dirty hack, but sold very well. Internally in React the state of a hook is being kept and updated when you call the set function, kinda similar to vtables and context in OOP. There is no other way to do…
I've never increased my productivity by using Typescript, although I really tried very hard to like it. It just keeps bugging me. It's a constant stream of interruptions that force me to please the TS compiler, compared…