For my company which went from its internal hand rolled ticketing system to Jira, Azure, etc. the big issue is that our hand rolled system, even though it had limited features, was significantly more suited to our needs.
It was much faster, had the exact fields we needed, and the exact workflow we wanted. It provided email alerts using the rules thst made sense for us and did I mention it was ridiculously faster?
We went from a single developer probably spending a few weeks in a year to maintain/augment a ticketing system that worked really great for us, to paying hundreds of thousands for something that doesn’t work well at all.
Hooks allow functional components to be used for non pure components.
Which is a huge win IMO because the whole class/object paradigm in JavaScript is broken, and tracking what ‘this’ might be is literally impossible.
I think that’s sufficient reason to use hooks.
Hooks bring a completely new paradigm and I think it was brought out of Beta too early, so React now has to stick with certain concepts that appear bad ideas in hindsight (a fairly simple and relevant example would be that running useEffect on every render should not have been the default…I suspect the React team could have swapped the behaviors for empty array dependency and no dependency parameter, and it wouldn’t be any more logically weird than what we have today and the default behavior would have been far less footgun-ny).
I do think the general idea behind hooks is excellent. I think some of the existing choices, however, need a significant rethink, with the additional real world experience the React devs have with it now.
I completely agree that useEffect should not be used for side effects. The concept of using it to sync with an external system makes far more sense.
But this is a very different and new understanding of what useEffect is. The React team, for whatever reason, does not present it as that. They do not point out that, yes, this was originally supposed to be for effects but they realized that this was a bad idea and have refined how they believe it should be used.
Instead, the documentation and commentary around such changes never point out they are changes and just present them as how things are. Which leads to a tremendous amount of confusion among new developers learning React, because it’s never clear what the actual correct approach is, since you rarely come across commentary in a temporally ordered way.
If the Beta docs included the statement “we used to recommend this for side effects, but now don’t”, any newbie reading that will forever understand why the highly upvoted SO answer from 3 years ago recommends using useEffect for a certain side effect but today, that is probably not the right solution.
No. Indians are very pro capitalism. Especially since the 90s reforms which are largely the precursor to Indias growth.
However, Indians don’t have an ideological attachment to capitalism. It’s looked upon as the best way to grow and improve things in most, but not all, avenues. So Indians are still in favor of socialist policies where they are working well. So, Indians probably would not be in favor of privatizing Indian Railways, or eliminating the many subsidies and free supplies given to the poorest, or eliminating the 50% foreign investment cap in many industries.
7% inflation as opposed to a targeted high of 6% is very different from 7% (actually 8+%) inflation, from a targeted high of about 2-4% (the Fed doesn’t publish a range I believe…they only say they target 2%…in practice, historically, they’ve treated 2% as a high, but I believe thats changed since the Great Recession so I’ll generously assume a +-2% range).
What’s even more relevant to the Indian situation is that much of that inflation is being driven by the strength of the dollar which has made imports more expensive.
The U.S., of course, is on the other side of that problem. The ridiculously strong dollar means that solely currency effects should be making things cheaper for Americans.
Because the CCP’s (more specifically Xi Jinping’s) entire thesis is that democracies are incapable of producing good outcomes.
A lot of the move towards authoritarianism that we’ve been seeing in the world has been driven by the success of the “China model”.
If India is successful to a similar degree as China, that shatters this belief, especially since there are very significant questions about the Chinese economy and how stable it is. A lot of the numbers appear to be made up in a way India simply cannot do.
And if Democracies can achieve success, Chinese citizens themselves may consider it as the better alternative as it might indicate that China’s economic success was less the result of the CCP and more because the Chinese government chose to move towards a Western capitalist economic system a couple of decades before India.