Reading your comment, I have the impression you took it as "there shouldn't be any state management necessary", instead of "state management doesn't need a framework" sense.

"Why use a widely popular, well-documented, battle-tested framework? Just have one of your senior devs build something over the weekend. This will definitely reduce complexity."

Like... I get what you're saying. But "build your own" is not a default answer for an extremely complicated software engineering topic (which, yes, state management is!)

But, that led to the community building hundreds of addon libraries for the same sets of use cases, which is what led us to build our official Redux Toolkit package to simplify standard Redux usage patterns.

Did you mean to reply to a different comment?

Quoted from the comment they're replying to.

> [..] maybe “state management” is not something you need a framework for?

Quoted from their reply.

To me it seemed like the comment was attacking its parent for investigating state management frameworks in the first place - when it in fact called out "no framework" as a valid alternative to any number of frameworks.

(I hope that made sense)