> > I'm curious what makes it sound that way, since as you noted, that is not > the point I'm making. >
I don't know if others feels like me or not. But at least for me, "no components" sounds a bit confusing (it is in official guide too). As you explained the context behind the term "component" is quite huge. I use the word "component" just to say "reusable UI", so "no component" sounds like "no reusable UI". But isn't sortable-table a component? For those who understand the context, it is not a component, but I don't know how others feel (especially who come from JS world). Also, "no components, no nesting TEA" does not answer the problem discussed here. So how can we do instead? Maybe introducing sortable-table pattern is more constructive for this discussion. I think it is a variant of TEA, managing its own state, but still keeping the form of "reusable *view*". So great! 2017-04-20 4:39 GMT+09:00 Richard Feldman <[email protected]>: > 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/elm-discuss/Lo6bG96zotI/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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.
