### Summary The discussion critiques the oversimplified mental model of React as a UI = f(state), calling attention to its limitations, especially regarding component state management and transitions. Key points include: - **UI = f(state**): While enticing, this model fails to capture the complexity of React, particularly with hooks like useRef, which allow for local state outside the proposed functional paradigm. - **Server-Side Rendering (SSR)**: There are arguments for moving state management to the server, significantly reducing client-side complexity and thereby simplifying UI interactions—for example, viewing client state merely as a session cookie. - **Idempotency in Transitions**: Suggests that making transitions idempotent could simplify handling UI states and responses, allowing certain actions to be repeated without adverse effects, thus advocating for better state handling practices. - **Alternatives to useEffect**: The complexity introduced by the useEffect hook is noted as a barrier to optimal state management, with mentions of alternatives such as SolidJS that may offer simpler paradigms. - **State Machine Limitations**: Many contributors argue against representing UI with state machine diagrams, labeling them ineffective for complex applications due to the overwhelming number of states and transitions. It is concluded that simpler functions may offer a clearer understanding of program states than exhaustive state diagrams. - **Cargo Cult Programming**: A critical view on current practices that overemphasize class avoidance and the fundamental principles of functional programming in React, arguing they can lead to convoluted codebases. ### Conclusion Overall, the posts indicate a need for developers to revisit and question the traditional mental models and methodologies they apply in React development, seeking more effective ways to manage state and transitions. This highlights the importance of flexibility in programming paradigms across varying project needs.