|
Hi! First up — not that it matters, but since people will wonder — our design wasn't informed by the Reactivity Transform. We evaluated something close to 50 designs, some of them extremely wacky, before settling on runes, and it wasn't until after that time that the Reactivity Transform was brought to our attention. Nevertheless, it's interesting and validating that we landed on such similar approaches. While the Reactivity Transform failed, it did so for reasons that I don't think apply to us: - $state and $ref are quite different. $state doesn't give you access to the underlying object, so there's no conversion necessary between reactive variables and ref objects (either in your head or in code). - There's strict read/write separation. Anyone with access to a ref has the ability to change its value, which definitely causes problems at scale. It's something that React, Solid and Svelte 5 get right. - Reactivity Transform introduces things like $() for magic destructuring and $$() for preserving reactivity across boundaries. We're instead encouraging people to use familiar JavaScript concepts like functions and accessors - There are already a lot of different ways to work with Vue — SFCs vs non-SFCs, template syntax vs JSX, composition API vs options API, `<script>` vs `<script setup>`... on top of that, adding a new compiler mode that needs to interoperate with everything else is inevitably going to be a challenge. This isn't the case with Svelte. While both runes and non-runes mode will be supported for the next two major versions, meaning there will be some short term fragmentation, we've made it clear that runes are the future of Svelte. |
I wouldn't say they are "different" - they are fundamentally the same thing: compiler-enabled reactive variables backed by runtime signals! But yes, Vue already exposes the underlying concept of refs, so for users it's two layers of abstractions. This is something that Svelte doesn't suffer from at this moment, but I suspect you will soon see users reinventing the same primitive in userland.
> There's strict read/write separation
I'd argue this is something made more important than it seems to be - we've hardly seen real issues caused by this in real world cases, and you can enforce separation if you want to.
> We're instead encouraging people to use familiar JavaScript concepts like functions and accessors
This is good (despite making exposing state much more verbose). In Vue, we had to introduce destructuring macros because we wanted the transform to be using the same return shape with all the existing composable functions like VueUse.
> There are already a lot of different ways to work with Vue
This is largely because Vue has a longer history, more legacy users that we have to cater to, so it's much harder to get rid of old cruft. We also support cases that Svelte doesn't account for, e.g. use without a compile step. That said, the default way with a compile step is now clearly Composition API + <script setup>. Reactivity Transform also only really applied in this case so the point you raised is kinda moot.
Separate from the above points, the main reason Reactivity Transform wasn't accepted remains in Runes: the fact that compiler-magic now invades normal JS/TS files and alters vanilla semantics. Variable assignments can now potentially be reactive - but there is no obvious indication other than the declaration site. We had users trying Reactivity Transform on large production codebases, and they ended up finding their large composition functions harder to grasp due to exactly this (and not any of the points raised above).