> > You are right if everyone make their UI from scratch, but how about others > who wants to *use *existing library? For instance, date picker is a > popular widget. We expect this widget to do lot of complex things behind > the scene. But it requires state management (e.g. selected month). Without > nested TEA, how can we use this library? [...] elm-sortable-table is a good > example (I wonder why nobody mention it, btw). Calling update function is > not needed. You can use it just like <input> element. I hope UI libraries > that uses this pattern will increase. >
I think Sortable Table is a perfect example of this! How do we use the library? The same way we use any library: we read the docs and plug into the API it provides. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that. :) Terms like "component is proven to be an anti-pattern" sounds too negative > for me. > I appreciate the sentiment, but I think it's appropriate to be negative when exploring something has yielded an overall negative result. :) > It sounds like "Elm proposes DIY every time, no reusable UI ever!", even > if you mean "no need to make everything a component for building app, there > are actually not so many reusable UI parts in practice". > I'm curious what makes it sound that way, since as you noted, that is not the point I'm making. Any feedback on how I could be clearer would be appreciated! > -- 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.
