As much as I love exploring and using weird tech for personal projects, I’m actually very conservative when it comes to using new tech in production. Yet I was an immediate, strong proponent of React Hooks the second they came out. Before Hooks, React really had two fundamentally different ways to write components: class-based, with arbitrary amounts of state; or pure components, done as simple functions, with zero state. That could be fine, but the absolutely rigid split between the two was a problem: even an almost entirely pure component that had merely one little tiny bit of persistent state—you know, rare stuff like a checkbox—meant you had to use the heavyweight class-based component paradigm. So in most projects, after awhile, pretty much everyone just defaulted to class-based components. Why go the lightweight route if you know you’ll have to rewrite it in the end, anyway?

Hooks promised a way out that was deeply enticing: functional components could now be the default, and state could be cleanly added to them as-needed, without rewriting them in a class-based style. From a purist perspective, this was awesome, because JavaScript profoundly does not really want to have classes; and form a maintenance perspective, this meant we could shift functional-components—which are much easier to test and debug than components with complex state, and honestly quite common—back to the forefront, without having the threat of a full rewrite dangling over our heads.

I was able to convince my coworkers at Bakpax to adopt Hooks very quickly, and we used them successfully in the new, much richer content model that we launched a month ago. But from the get-go, one hook made me nervous: useReducer . It somehow felt incredibly heavyweight, like Redux was trying to creep into the app. It seemed to me like a tacit admission that Hooks couldn’t handle everything.

The thing is, useReducer is actually awesome: the reducer can easily be stored outside the component and even dependency-injected, giving you a great way to centralize all state transforms in a testable way, while the component itself stays pure. Complex state for complex components became simple, and actually fit into Hooks just fine. After some experimentation, small state in display components could be a useState or two, while complex state in state-only components could be useReducer , and everyone went home happy. I’d been entirely wrong to be afraid of it.

No, it was useEffect that should’ve frightened me.

A goto for React

If you walk into React Hooks with the expectation that Hooks must fully replace all use cases of class-based components, then you hit a problem. React’s class-based components can respond to life-cycle events—such as being mounted, being unmounted, and getting new props—that are necessary to implement certain behaviors, such as altering global values (e.g., history.pushState , or window.scrollTo), in a reasonable way. React Hooks, out-of-the-box, would seem to forbid that, specifically because they try to get very close to making state-based components look like pure components, where any effects would be entirely local.

For that reason, Hooks also provides an odd-one-out hook, called useEffect . useEffect gets around Hooks limitations by basically giving you a way to execute arbitrary code in your functional component whenever you want: every render, every so many milliseconds, on mounts, on prop updates, whatever. Congratulations: you’re back to full class-based power.

The problem is that, just seeing that a component has a useEffect gives you no idea what it’s trying to do. Is the effect going to be local, or global? Is it responding to a life-cycle event, such as a component mount or unmount, or is it “merely” escaping Hooks for a brief second to run a network request or the like? This information was a lot easier to quickly reason about in class-based components, even if only by inference: seeing componentWillReceiveProps and componentWillMount get overrides, but componentWillUnmount left alone, gives me a really good idea that the component is just memoizing something, rather than mutating global state.

That’s a lot trickier to quickly infer with useEffect : you really need to check everything listed in its dependency list, see what those values are doing, and track it up recursively, to come up with your own answer of what life-cycle events useEffect is actually handling. And this can be error-prone not only on the read, but also on the write: since you, not React, supply the dependency chain, it’s extremely easy to omit a variable that you actually want to depend on, or to list one you don’t care about. As a result, you get a component that either doesn’t fire enough, or fires way too often. And figuring out why can sometimes be an exercise in frustration: sure, you can put in a breakpoint, but even then, just trying to grok which dependency has actually changed from React’s perspective can be enormously error-pone in a language where both value identity and pointer identity apply in different contexts.

I suspect that the React team intended useEffect to only serve as the foundation for higher-level Hooks, with things like useMemo or useCallback serving as examples of higher-level Hooks. And those higher-level Hooks will I think be fine, once there’s a standard collection of them, because I’ll know that I can just grep for, I dunno, useHistory to figure out why the pushState has gone wonky. But as things stand today, the anemic collection of useEffect -based hooks in React proper means that reaching for useEffect directly is all too common in real-world React projects I’ve seen—and when useEffect is used used in the raw, in a component, in place of explicit life-cycle events? At the end of the day, it just doesn’t feel worth it.

The compromise (for now)

What we’ve ended up doing at Bakpax is pretty straightforward: Hooks are great. Use them when it makes sense. Even complex state can stay in Hooks via useReducer . But the second we genuinely need to start dealing with life-cycle events, we go back to a class-based component. That means, in general, anything that talks to the network, has timers, plays with React Portals, or alters global variables ends up being class-based, but it can in certain places even bring certain animation effects or the like back to the class-based model. We do still have plenty of hooks in new code, but this compromise has resulted in quite a few components either staying class-based, or even migrating to a class-based design, and I feel as if it’s improved readability.

I’m a bit torn on what I really want to see going forward. In theory, simply shipping a lot more example hooks based on useEffect , whether as an official third-party library list or as an official package from the React team, would probably allow us to avoid more of our class-based components. But I also wonder if the problem is really that Hooks simply should not be the only abstraction in React for state. It’s entirely possible that class-based components, with their explicit life-cycle, simply work better than useEffect for certain classes of problems, and that Hooks trying to cover both cases is a misstep.

At any rate, for the moment, class-based components are going to continue to have a place when I write React, and Bakpax allowing both to live side-by-side in our codebase seems like the best path forward for now.