I'm just to jumping in here, to say a couple of things. You shouldn't need Polymer. Just web components, which are a standard and > implemented in most browsers (probably all browsers on which Elm runs).
Well that's not true, other then Blink there is no support http://caniuse.com/#feat=custom-elements so polyfills are needed which Polymer provides (and very hard to set up by separate pieces). Also maybe you don't know but I've created Elm-UI <http://elm-ui.info> just for the same reason: to quickly build stuff from the same components just like Bootstrap. And it solves many of the problems that seems you are facing, the downside of it is that it's not in the official repository because well it "doesn't play nice". It uses the standard TEA where components with their own state and I think that is just fine it doesn't need to be more simple or complicated then that. And the communication is solved by allowing the components to publish messages to anyone who is subscribing to them. On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 11:57:38 PM UTC+2, Peter Damoc wrote: > > Evan points out that people would consider thinking in terms of Objects > for certain parts of the UI as a bad idea > https://youtu.be/LCNs92YQjhw?t=1340 > > he also points that Components are more or less the same thing and that we > should move away from thinking about them. > > The way I view it, the core idea behind Components is the closure > property that professor Abelson speaks about here: > https://youtu.be/2QgZVYI3tDs?t=2194 > > Building complexity by combining things and getting the same kind of thing > that can then be used to combine with other things. > > The sidebar would be a *thing, a widget, an object, a component. * Now I > could implement it right now by using the components of elm-html and have > that component be a simple function where some elm-html widgets are > combined in a certain way. > > The problem is that *some of the components* that are needed in a modern > UI need small state. If these components are implemented in C++ and wrapped > by the virtual-dom, we are lucky, we can use them. If they are not, we are > out of luck. Even a humble dropdown cannot be used as pleasantly as a > radiobox because it needs a small "isVisible" piece of state. This has > nothing to do with the business objectives of that UI. It is just a piece > of transitory, accidental information. The same with an accordion, a > datepicker or a slider. These cannot be used as pleasantly as regular > elm-html components. > > elm-mdl has that closure property. One could create components that > combine and behave like elm-mdl components. > > And there is no official, blessed alternative that would have this > property for components that need a little bit of state. > > When I first saw the Elm Architecture I thought that it will evolve into > something like a component architecture. In my naivety I thought that we > will get some kind of function that would take a model, update and the view > and would output some kind of component that would be usable in place of > any other elm-html component. And the state would be sanely managed by the > runtime with messages and all will be well. > > The elm-parts part of elm-mdl kinda does what I imagine that Elm > Architecture would evolve into. I'm not referring to the implementation > details of elm-parts. I'm referring to the stuff like this line: > https://github.com/debois/elm-mdl/blob/master/src/Material/Button.elm#L417 > a call that would just wire things together and give me the thing that is > the same as the rest of the things. > > I think that solving the need that prompted elm-parts would basically mean > solving the Components issue. > > What am I missing here? I understand that this is a complex issue but why > is this particular *need of a nice way of combining things that have > behavior* not being addressed? > > I'm seeing the word *state* thrown around a lot but seriously, has state > been shown to be an issue in an Elm program? (I'm talking real issues with > a SSCCE attached not hypothetical stuff). I understand how this can be a > problem in a language with imperative execution and global state but even > in those languages if care is taken for state to be localized, things are > manageable. > > Why not have some kind of automatic state management for these widgets? > > -- > There is NO FATE, we are the creators. > blog: http://damoc.ro/ > -- 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 elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
