7 ms·

You're right that reactive UI is a poor fit for most languages (especially JavaScript!), but I think the problem is more general than that. Good UI architectur

You're right that reactive UI is a poor fit for most languages (especially JavaScript!), but I think the problem is more general than that. Good UI architecture needs some convenient and efficient way to propagate state changes between different parts of the UI framework [0]. This requirement sits in an awkward place, halfway between imperative programming and functional programming. It just isn't in the day-to-day vocabulary of any mainstream language, not even modern imperative languages which have a bit of functional programming mixed in. I don't think OOP is any better at fulfilling this requirement. Being able to offload half of your program into a visual editor is nice, but it's cold comfort if the other half of your program ends up being a tangled mess of callbacks and data binding. [0]: https://raphlinus.github.io/ui/druid/2019/11/22/reactive-ui.html https://raphlinus.github.io/ui/druid/2019/11/22/reactive-ui....

skydhash 2y ago
We already have a solution for most UI presented in this paper [1]. Functional programming let you represent the solution in a much nicer way after you've hidden the oop/imperative machinery away. But it's a complete package where the declarative part is only the shell. The UI part of any application should be considered as an external module, (like the data access layer) and the code architecture should reflect this. In an extreme way, if you can't create a telnet interface to you GUI software, that means your interface is already too coupled to the rest of the code. [1]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/62402.62404 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/62402.62404
mike_hearn 2y ago
Yes you're absolutely right that these language dialects keep emerging because regular languages don't have quite the right features for reactive computations. Still, OOP was originally designed for GUIs and is a great fit for that, it's easier to build functional stuff on top than the other way around (apparently, judging from experience of having used both). The closest I found to what I mean is that JavaFX has a whole observables framework, and there's ReactFX that builds a lot of stuff on top of it. With a small change that I prototyped in the past you can do what React Compiler is trying to do, where you run code and record what properties are read then register dependencies and re-run on change. It's quite a natural fit.

skydhash 2y ago

We already have a solution for most UI presented in this paper [1]. Functional programming let you represent the solution in a much nicer way after you've hidden the oop/imperative machinery away. But it's a complete package where the declarative part is only the shell. The UI part of any application should be considered as an external module, (like the data access layer) and the code architecture should reflect this. In an extreme way, if you can't create a telnet interface to you GUI software, that means your interface is already too coupled to the rest of the code. [1]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/62402.62404 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/62402.62404

mike_hearn 2y ago

Yes you're absolutely right that these language dialects keep emerging because regular languages don't have quite the right features for reactive computations. Still, OOP was originally designed for GUIs and is a great fit for that, it's easier to build functional stuff on top than the other way around (apparently, judging from experience of having used both). The closest I found to what I mean is that JavaFX has a whole observables framework, and there's ReactFX that builds a lot of stuff on top of it. With a small change that I prototyped in the past you can do what React Compiler is trying to do, where you run code and record what properties are read then register dependencies and re-run on change. It's quite a natural fit.