[mlsarecmg]

React is not based on the dom, R3f merely expresses regular threejs which works as an object graph. Three is the usual choice for 3D on the web, if you use it once you'll see that it is also quite natural. There is no conflict between the two and react certainly doesn't change any rules or apis, it just builds a graph, which you would normally form imperatively.

[tuckerconnelly]

React is inspired by the DOM and they split it before 1.0 IIRC, but that misses the forest for the trees. The main issue I had is that React, Three.js, and R3F are all hierarchical/tree-like (what you and Three.js are calling a graph). You can technically yes, build 3D scenes, but anything non-trivial will be very awkward.

Let's say you're building a game where you want a sphere to stick to whatever player you throw it at. How would you do that with a scene graph/OOP model? It'd be awkward, removing objects from one parent and adding them to another. Even more awkward if it's a complex object and you only want a part of that complex object to stick to the player. ECS + a constraint or physics system does a decent job (not perfect) of handling this in a relatively elegant and performant way.

I've used Three.js enough--built my portfolio[1] out of it, and then switched to Babylon when I realized how little I liked Three.js. For the record, I also dislike Babylon.

[1] https://tuckerconnelly.com

[mlsarecmg]

i have yet to encounter something that shouldn't be expressed as a graph. three, babylon, ogl, blender, gltf, cad, games, they're all scene aligned. that doesn't seem to be a conflict since you still use shaders, physics, ecs and so on.

could you go more into detail what you mean when you say "anything non trivial"? is there a real example of something that would not be possible to create in, say, threejs?