> "Except for games, UIs are actually very stable, more stable than the model. You have chrome, viewers, tools etc. What is a (somewhat) pure mapping from the model is the data that is displayed in the UI, but not the entire UI.
So if we don't make the incorrect assumption that UIs are unstable (pure functions of model), then we don't have to expend additional and fragile effort to re-create that necessary stability."
I think this could be the key takeaway from the linked article. It hits the nail on the head, on the other hand though, pure functions are _really_ nice, so I believe in the future development of UI frameworks will congregate in that direction, but in a more fine-grained way than React et al.
> on the other hand though, pure functions are _really_ nice
Yes, and therefore it would be really nice if they were an appropriate model here. But they're not. It would also be really convenient if π were 3, but it's not, and pretending that it is 3 just doesn't give you good circles.
Except this has always been BS, and IMHO this fundamental inconsistency at the heart of the model is why the wheel has to keep on turning.
https://blog.metaobject.com/2018/12/uis-are-not-pure-functio...
(Read to the end...)
https://github.com/reactjs/react-basic/pull/12