Mark, I don't understand why so much concern about private state. The reason components (in JS frameworks) need private state is to protect them from accidental mutation by callers. With immutable data, I don't see a need to hide data.
I've had to maintain several 10K+ JavaScript codebases. The number one problem I've had is mutable state spread throughout those apps. Unit tests don't help here; sure components work fine in isolation, but no amount of disciple saves you from bugs where a reference is leaked from a nested data structure then mutated in a closure somewhere else. Do you have a real case for components in the way you propose? To me, it doesn't seem like you've tried to build anything substantial with Elm to understand Evan and Richard's point of view on the matter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
