|
|
|
|
|
|
by IshKebab
1604 days ago
|
|
|
Your own comment makes it pretty clear that React is not immediate mode. Not the immediate mode that everyone understands anyway. Your "traditional immediate" and "react immediate" are just terms you made up. React is clearly a different thing to immediate mode and retained mode. You don't have to cram everything into those two categories. We could do with a word for it though. I don't think the guy you linked is a React Dev. |
|
|
The terms, yes. The descriptions and understanging of React (as an immediate mode wrapper over DOM) is shared across the community, all the way to Wikipedia:
"One way to have the flexibility and composability of an immediate mode GUI without the disadvantages of keeping the widget tree only in function calls, with the lack of direct control of how the GUI is drawn in the rendering engine would be to use a virtual widget tree, just like React uses a virtual DOM".
What you're arguing is little details about "how things were always done in immediate land" as this was set in stone.
Well, React and descriptions of the UI such as SwiftJS, also shown that you can apply the immediate UI concept to something other than direct drawing calls - namely, controlling a retained mode UI underneath with the same logic you'd call paint functions (or abstract them to "drawButton" and such).
It's not that you're wrong. It's just that you're right about the trees, not the forrest. It's the concept that matters, not the implementation details -- which is like complaining that "Linux can't be UNIX, it doesn't derive from ancient blessed code". Yeah, but it's still UNIX to everybody - and in fact today's de facto UNIX.
>I don't think the guy you linked is a React Dev.
I didn't say he was. In fact it says up there on the tweet he's doing Aurora, and that in that he was inspired from React and its immediate mode approach (he's the guy behind Lighttable/Aurora/Eve).