A React function component is a JavaScript function that accepts props as an argument and returns JSX to define the UI, serving as the standard approach for modern React development. Unlike class components, they do not require the this keyword, are simpler to write and test, and are slightly faster due to fewer internal abstractions.
With the introduction of React Hooks, function components can now manage state and handle side effects (previously exclusive to class components), making them versatile for both stateless and stateful applications. While they traditionally lacked lifecycle methods, hooks like useEffect now allow them to replicate behaviors such as componentDidMount and componentDidUpdate.
Key Characteristics
Definition: Created using the
functionkeyword or arrow functions (e.g.,const Component = () => JSX).Data Flow: Receive data via props (properties) passed from parent components, which are read-only.
State Management: Uses Hooks like
useStateto handle local state anduseEffectfor side effects.Performance: Generally more efficient than class components because they avoid the overhead of creating component instances.
Function vs. Class Components
| Feature | Function Components | Class Components |
| Syntax | Simple JavaScript functions | ES6 classes extending React.Component |
| State | Managed via Hooks (e.g., useState) | Managed via this.state and this.setState |
| Lifecycle | Handled by Hooks (e.g., useEffect) | Dedicated methods (e.g., componentDidMount) |
this Keyword | Not required | Required to access props and state |
| Performance | Slightly faster due to fewer abstractions | Slightly slower due to more internal logic |
The first thing to note is that stateless functional components cannot have methods: You shouldn't count on calling update or draw on a rendered Ball if it is a stateless functional component.
In most cases you should declare the functions outside the component function so you declare them only once and always reuse the same reference. When you declare the function inside, every time the component is rendered the function will be defined again.
There are cases in which you will need to define a function inside the component to, for example, assign it as an event handler that behaves differently based on the properties of the component. But still you could define the function outside Ball and bind it with the properties, making the code much cleaner and making the update or draw functions reusable:
// you can use update somewhere else
const update = (propX, a, b) => { ... };
const Ball = props => (
<Something onClick={update.bind(null, props.x)} />
);
If you're using hooks, you can use useCallback to ensure the function is only redefined when any of its dependencies change (props.x in this case):
const Ball = props => {
const onClick = useCallback((a, b) => {
// do something with a, b and props.x
}, [props.x]);
return (
<Something onClick={onClick} />
);
}
This is the wrong way:
const Ball = props => {
function update(a, b) {
// props.x is visible here
}
return (
<Something onClick={update} />
);
}
When using useCallback, defining the update function in the useCallback hook itself or outside the component becomes a design decision more than anything: You should take into account if you're going to reuse update and/or if you need to access the scope of the component's closure to, for example, read/write to the state. Personally I choose to define it inside the component by default and make it reusable only if the need arises, to prevent over-engineering from the start. On top of that, reusing application logic is better done with more specific hooks, leaving components for presentational purposes. Defining the function outside the component while using hooks really depends on the grade of decoupling from React you want for your application logic.
Another common discussion about useCallback is whether to always use it for every function or not. That is, treat is as opt-in or always recommendable. I would argue to always use useCallback: I've seen many bugs caused by not wrapping a function in useCallback and not a single scenario where doing so affects the performance or logic in any way. In most cases, you want to keep a reference while the dependencies don't change, so you can use the function itself as a dependency for other effects, memos or callback. In many cases the callback will be passed as a prop to other elements, and if you memoized it with useCallback you won't change the props (thus re-render) other components independently of how cheap or costly that would be. I've seen many thousands of functions declared in components and not a single case in which using useCallback would have any down side. On the other hand most functions not memoized with useCallback would eventually be changed to do so, causing serious bugs or performance issues if the developer doesn't recognize the implications of not doing so. Technically there is a performance hit by using useCallback, as you would be creating and additional function but it is negligible compared to the re-declaration of the function that always has to happen either you use useCallback or not and the overall footprint of React and JavaScript. So, if you are really concerned about the performance impact of useCallback versus not using it, you should be questioning yourself if React is the right tool for the job.
Where should functions in function components go?
What's the difference between a React.FunctionComponent and a plain JS function component?
Please say "Function Component" instead of "Functional Component"
Why are function components better than class components?
Videos
The first thing to note is that stateless functional components cannot have methods: You shouldn't count on calling update or draw on a rendered Ball if it is a stateless functional component.
In most cases you should declare the functions outside the component function so you declare them only once and always reuse the same reference. When you declare the function inside, every time the component is rendered the function will be defined again.
There are cases in which you will need to define a function inside the component to, for example, assign it as an event handler that behaves differently based on the properties of the component. But still you could define the function outside Ball and bind it with the properties, making the code much cleaner and making the update or draw functions reusable:
// you can use update somewhere else
const update = (propX, a, b) => { ... };
const Ball = props => (
<Something onClick={update.bind(null, props.x)} />
);
If you're using hooks, you can use useCallback to ensure the function is only redefined when any of its dependencies change (props.x in this case):
const Ball = props => {
const onClick = useCallback((a, b) => {
// do something with a, b and props.x
}, [props.x]);
return (
<Something onClick={onClick} />
);
}
This is the wrong way:
const Ball = props => {
function update(a, b) {
// props.x is visible here
}
return (
<Something onClick={update} />
);
}
When using useCallback, defining the update function in the useCallback hook itself or outside the component becomes a design decision more than anything: You should take into account if you're going to reuse update and/or if you need to access the scope of the component's closure to, for example, read/write to the state. Personally I choose to define it inside the component by default and make it reusable only if the need arises, to prevent over-engineering from the start. On top of that, reusing application logic is better done with more specific hooks, leaving components for presentational purposes. Defining the function outside the component while using hooks really depends on the grade of decoupling from React you want for your application logic.
Another common discussion about useCallback is whether to always use it for every function or not. That is, treat is as opt-in or always recommendable. I would argue to always use useCallback: I've seen many bugs caused by not wrapping a function in useCallback and not a single scenario where doing so affects the performance or logic in any way. In most cases, you want to keep a reference while the dependencies don't change, so you can use the function itself as a dependency for other effects, memos or callback. In many cases the callback will be passed as a prop to other elements, and if you memoized it with useCallback you won't change the props (thus re-render) other components independently of how cheap or costly that would be. I've seen many thousands of functions declared in components and not a single case in which using useCallback would have any down side. On the other hand most functions not memoized with useCallback would eventually be changed to do so, causing serious bugs or performance issues if the developer doesn't recognize the implications of not doing so. Technically there is a performance hit by using useCallback, as you would be creating and additional function but it is negligible compared to the re-declaration of the function that always has to happen either you use useCallback or not and the overall footprint of React and JavaScript. So, if you are really concerned about the performance impact of useCallback versus not using it, you should be questioning yourself if React is the right tool for the job.
You can place functions inside stateless functional components:
function Action() {
function handlePick(){
alert("test");
}
return (
<div>
<input type="button" onClick={handlePick} value="What you want to do ?" />
</div>
)
}
But it's not a good practice as the function handlePick() will be defined every time the component is rendered.
It would be better to define the function outside the component:
function handlePick(){
alert("test");
}
function Action() {
return (
<div>
<input type="button" onClick={handlePick} value="What you want to do ?" />
</div>
)
}
There is no difference under the hood. The first one is using TypeScript syntax to indicate the type of React.FunctionComponent but they are both plain JS function components.
there are some minor differences, plain function component could return string, like:
const FooString = () => "foo";
but you couldn't return string from a FunctionComponent.
const BarString: React.FC<{}> = () => "string";
hence the return type must be ReactElement|null
I have seen this mistake for years and it really annoys me as it’s just wrong.
There is almost nothing functional in a react component besides some map functions.
For the sake of good vocabulary usage say "Function Component", because it’s a component made by a function instead previously by classes.
Here are the official docs:
https://reactjs.org/docs/components-and-props.html
Peace ✌️
I really have this question, but I dont want to read answers like "syntax" or "lifecycle methodts", I want to read things that REALLY change the game between them. Why functional is better?
How do you declare your functional components?
Style #1 (JS)
function Component ({title}) {}Style #2 (JS)
const Component = ({title}) => {};Style #3 (TS)
interface ComponentProps {}
function Component ({title}: ComponentProps) {}Style #4 (TS)
const Component: FC<ComponentProps> = ({title}) => {};Which style do you prefer and why? What are the pros and cons of each approach?