This discussion reminds me of Edward Abbey in Desert Solitaire advocating for not building roads in national parks to preserve the experience of true wilderness.
Obviously having roads is a great boon to a park's accessibility, and the ability of people with different mobility needs to appreciate nature. But it also made me thoughtful to imagine the feeling of wonder at seeing bridalveil fall after hiking for days into a roadless yosemite valley; how much more special and impressive it would seem after that journey?
This metaphorical tangent is pretty far removed from the original discussion, but how do you weigh the accessibility of a thing against how that accessibility changes its nature?
Do you have a problem with the linked article? As someone who djs occasionally I found it to be an insightful and technical look into Avalon’s process, and left me with some ideas for my own workflow.
The article provides multiple anecdotal examples of where expensive status symbols were a clear factor in someone’s ability or inability to access jobs and opportunities.
Do you have better evidence than this or can you only provide confident but unsubstantiated opinion?
This is exactly the use case for HOCs and why I continue to be old man yells at cloud about how the "hooks replace(d) HOCs" zeitgeist is missing a key benefit.
Wrapping components lets you have layers that don't have to care about what's going on inside. HOCs just let you write those layers in a way that can be composed. In your example, `isVisible` could be its own HOC, and then the inner component can have whatever name it needs.