(Which is an interesting turn of events, personally, because I really liked Knockout ages ago, but its attempted successors in MobX, Aurelia, and even Vue leave me cold. I think partly because Knockout was so much more verbose and forced/needed a clearer "MVVM" separation simply by how "dumb" it was, whereas Proxies and Descriptors gives too much of an illusion that you are working with "plain" objects that don't need a clear "MVVM" separation until it is sometimes too late to fix a maintainability/tech debt hole.)

Sure, you don't need Redux in the middle of the "oreo", but it's also not the "wrong" answer, either.

Yes, and before I was using React+Redux+Redux-Observable I was using Cycle.JS and everything was RxJS and/or Xstream (an RxJS-like) observable-based patterns.

As I said, this stack is a useful "oreo" for my needs right now. I understand if "oreo" isn't your cookie of choice.

> at the very least I think we can agree that "Doing one thing well" in UNIX means not creating a bunch of new problems that you need other tools to solve.

Again, I think the problem here is that we are disagreeing on what the problems even are. Again, I don't think these tools "create problems", I believe they solve very specific problems, and yes very "unix" in that way of solving as specific a problem as they can and no larger, and leave other problems that already existed untouched, whether or not they were in play, because again that's the philosophy here. React is "just" a view layer with a bare modicum of state responsibility. Redux is "just" a state layer. Redux-observable is "just" a tool for handling state side-effects. They don't need to solve every development problem, this isn't Angular. Similarly, they aren't the only tools for the job. There are several alternatives to each part of that stack (as others in this thread keep pointing out), this is just the one I've chosen for my projects right now.