u/Temperature_Majestic

Ran into this explaining React rendering to someone recently and realized how often it trips people up even after they've been writing React a while.

function Parent() {
  const [count, setCount] = useState(0);
  return (
    <>
      <button onClick={() => setCount(c => c + 1)}>{count}</button>
      <ExpensiveChild />
    </>
  );
}

ExpensiveChild takes no props at all. Click the button and it re-renders anyway, every single time. No props changed, nothing it reads changed, it just runs again.

The reason: React doesn't check "did this component's inputs change" before deciding to re-render. When state updates, React re-renders that component and everything below it in the tree by default, full stop. Whether a child actually needed to update isn't part of that decision at all.

React.memo is what actually opts a component into that check, it wraps the component and does a shallow prop comparison before deciding to skip the render. Without it, "no props" and "props didn't change" both mean nothing, React re-runs the function anyway.

Where it gets messier: memo alone doesn't save you if you're passing an inline function or object as a prop, since those are new references every render and memo's shallow comparison sees them as "changed" regardless. You end up needing useCallback/useMemo on the parent side just to make memo's comparison actually mean something.

Curious how many people actually reach for memo proactively vs only after profiling shows a real problem. What's the actual signal that told you a component needed it?

For me it's the classic:

for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) { setTimeout(() => console.log(i)); }

Looks like a syntax question about var vs let. Actually testing whether you understand that a closure captures a variable, not a value, and that's the exact same mechanism behind stale closures in useEffect/useCallback.

Curious what everyone else's version of this is, the question that looks simple on the surface but is really checking for a much deeper understanding once you dig into "why."