The React Component Pyramid Scheme: An Over-engineering Crisis

At immoderate point, we stopped penning React components and started worshiping them. The mantra of “reusability” turned from a champion believe into a full-blown theology.

Every squad has that 1 technologist preaching nan gospel of The Ultimate Component — nan 1 that tin grip each layout, colour strategy and separator lawsuit pinch a twelve optional props and 500 lines of conditionals.

What began arsenic a noble extremity of cleaner architecture has metastasized into a codebase wherever each record imports each different file, and nary 1 dares touch nan guidelines constituent for fearfulness of breaking nan full app. This isn’t codification reuse; it’s dependency indebtedness dressed up arsenic virtue.

The Cult of Component Reuse

Developers emotion elegance. We crave patterns that make america consciousness for illustration we’ve transcended nan chaos of ad-hoc coding. DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) became 1 of those ineffable principles — a elemental thought mutated into dogma. Instead of avoiding unnecessary duplication, galore teams started avoiding immoderate duplication, nary matter nan cost. The result? Abstract monstrosities that do a 1000 things poorly alternatively of 3 things well.

The obsession pinch reusability often leads to “prop soup.”

The obsession pinch reusability often leads to “prop soup”: components overloaded pinch props to grip each imaginable variation. You’ll spot Button components that judge 20 options conscionable to somewhat tweak padding aliases icon alignment. Instead of simplifying development, these components present complexity astatine scale. Debugging becomes archaeology, pinch developers sifting done layers of abstraction trying to fig retired why a fastener looks incorrect successful 1 discourse but good successful another.

The irony is that this fetishization of reuse really reduces reuse successful practice. When a constituent becomes truthful generic and overloaded that nary 1 wants to touch it, developers conscionable clone it anyway.

When nan DRY Principle Leads to Complexity

The DRY rule is beautiful successful theory, but brittle successful practice. Code plagiarism isn’t ever evil; sometimes it’s conscionable pragmatic. Over-abstracting tin portion codification of context, making it harder to logic about. A fewer other lines of repetition are often cheaper than a period spent deciphering a maze of reusable logic. Don’t beryllium slaves to metrics, people. Make them activity for you.

Imagine 2 forms successful your app: a login shape and a registration form. They stock immoderate inputs, but person different validation logic and submission flows. The DRY zealot merges them into a azygous mega-component pinch a twelve conditional branches. Now, each mini alteration risks breaking some flows. The original 2 elemental components person merged into a hydra of if-statements.

The cardinal isn’t to repetition yourself endlessly, but to cognize erstwhile reuse stops being businesslike and starts being entanglement.

Good engineering is astir balance. DRY should coexist pinch another, lesser-known principle: WET — Write Everything Twice. Duplication, erstwhile done intentionally, preserves clarity. It allows codification to germinate independently.

The cardinal isn’t to repetition yourself endlessly, but to cognize erstwhile reuse stops being businesslike and starts being entanglement. React’s constituent exemplary is elastic capable to tolerate immoderate duplication. The problem is that developers dainty plagiarism arsenic misdeed alternatively of strategy.

The Over-Engineered Button: A Case Study

Let’s talk astir Button.jsx, nan unofficial mascot of over-engineering. It’s ever there, lurking successful each React project. It starts simple: a reusable fastener pinch a colour and a label. Then personification needs an icon. Someone other needs a loading state.

Then it must support links, abnormal states, nested components, theming and civilization click handlers. Before long, Button.jsx has a twelve props, conditional rendering galore and a propType database longer than nan constituent itself.

Every caller developer is warned: “Don’t touch Button.jsx.” Yet everyone does.

Every caller developer is warned: “Don’t touch Button.jsx.” Yet everyone does, because each caller characteristic requires 1 much tweak. Eventually, nan abstraction collapses nether its ain flexibility. Testing becomes achy because you’re efficaciously testing 10 different components jammed into 1 file. Documentation lags behind, and what started arsenic a noble effort astatine reuse now throttles productivity.

At that point, teams commencement breaking disconnected splinters — creating SlightlyDifferentButton.jsx aliases IconButton.jsx. Ironically, nan antidote to over-reuse is duplication. The codebase returns to a authorities that’s really much maintainable because each fastener now does 1 point well. The moral: Reusing should service clarity, not nan different measurement around.

The Dangers of Premature Abstraction

The story of reuse stems from a misunderstanding of what makes codification maintainable. It’s not really fewer lines you’ve written and whether you’ve reduced unreality costs, but really fewer intelligence hops it takes to understand what’s happening. Every abstraction adds a furniture of indirection, and each furniture costs cognitive effort. The problem isn’t that we abstract; it’s that we absurd prematurely — earlier we genuinely understand nan problem domain.

Every abstraction adds a furniture of indirection, and each furniture costs cognitive effort.

Developers often generalize excessively early because it feels efficient. “We’ll astir apt request this successful different module,” personification says, and abruptly a single-purpose hook becomes a inferior pinch 5 parameters and 2 discourse providers. But abstraction without proven reuse isn’t foresight; it’s speculation. And speculative abstractions are immoderate of nan hardest codification to delete because they mightiness still beryllium useful someday.

Great abstractions look naturally. They’re calved from patterns repeated crossed real-world usage cases. When you absurd and use flight hatches properly, aft seeing 3 aliases 4 examples of nan aforesaid problem, your solution carries contented alternatively of assumptions. Premature abstraction, connected nan different hand, creates a scaffolding that traps your codification into patterns that nary longer make consciousness months later.

Adopting a Post-Reuse Mindset for React Architecture

We request a taste reset astir what “good” React architecture looks like. The industry’s obsession pinch DRY, generic components and high-level abstractions has led to brittle systems that look elegant but break easily. True maintainability isn’t astir really galore lines you tin share, it’s astir really easy it is to logic astir each portion successful isolation.

Believe it aliases not, embracing duplication doesn’t mean reverting to chaos. It intends respecting boundaries, keeping codification person to its discourse and accepting that section optimization is often amended than world purity. In practice, this mightiness mean having 3 different shape components that look 80% akin but are easy to modify independently. It mightiness mean deleting a “utility” usability utilized only twice. It mightiness moreover mean deleting your cosmopolitan Button.jsx and starting over.

Somewhere on nan way, we replaced simplicity pinch abstraction worship.

React was built connected nan thought of small, composable parts. Somewhere on nan way, we replaced that simplicity pinch abstraction worship. It’s clip to rediscover nan joyousness of simple, readable, context-aware code. The champion constituent isn’t nan 1 you tin usage everyplace — it’s nan 1 you tin understand instantly.

Simple, Self-Contained Components

The React ecosystem doesn’t request more reusable components and techniques to shop them. It needs much intentional ones. The pursuit of reuse for its ain liking has created a procreation of codebases that are theoretically elegant but practically fragile. Every abstraction carries a cost, and nan measure ever comes due.

Reuse is simply a tool, not a religion. The adjacent clip you’re tempted to refactor 3 akin components into 1 “smart” abstraction, inquire yourself: Who is this serving, nan codification aliases your ego? Because successful nan end, clarity outlives cleverness.

The healthiest systems aren’t pyramids built connected layers of abstraction; they’re gardens of simple, self-contained components that turn independently without choking each different out. Maybe it’s clip to extremity climbing nan pyramid — and commencement pruning nan plot instead.

Group Created pinch Sketch.