I think my gripe here is the casual use of “you might not need…”. It’s inspired by the “you might not need redux” article by Dan Abramov, but the difference here is that while you might not need Redux, you most likely will need useEffect. They’re just not same in that regard.

Maybe I’m just being pedantic here, but I think how you use words matters, and in this instance a better title would be “avoid unnecessary useEffect calls” or something like that. “You might not need an effect” is just poor (sloppy?) wording, because it’s usually objectively wrong.

The reason it matters in this instance is that with the current title I’m going into the article thinking I’ll learn some new way to do effects which is better than useEffect. But the article offers no alternative to useEffect. You will need useEffect.

In both cases (this page, and the one you mention) I think you’re inferring the wrong context — which is reasonable because it’s a legitimate inference.

I think the context is “for this use case”. Neither are saying never use Redux or useEffect, but are more about the common problem of people reaching for solutions that aren’t a good fit for their problem.