> > 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). >
I can see that, but given that the problem is "this word means many different things to many different people," the only way to have useful discussion seems to be insisting on using less vague terminology. I recognize the problem that people are used to using this word [to mean different things], but I don't see a better solution. Can you think of a way to use this overloaded word in a way where the people in the discussion are not confused by it, even though they think it means different things? Also, "no components, no nesting TEA" does not answer the problem discussed > here. So how can we do instead? > I covered how to grow Elm application code bases <https://www.reddit.com/r/elm/comments/5jd2xn/how_to_structure_elm_with_multiple_models/dbuu0m4/>, and Evan covered reuse <https://guide.elm-lang.org/reuse/>. What is the remaining problem? :) -- 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.
