[flying-pig]

The fact that you have to manually maintain the binding between states and UI elements and propagate state changes to UI elements is exactly the thing offered by VanJS, or other popular reactive frameworks (despite with a much larger bundle size)

[qayxc]

Sure thing. But it's also one of those things that comes back to bite you when you least expect it: https://vanjs.org/advanced#why-not-dom-valued-states

[flying-pig]

I don't get you. Could you elaborate?

[qayxc]

In the example I linked, the VanJS state cannot contain an element reference.

This would lead to unexpected results. So you have to be careful with state management, regardless of whether it's automated or not. There are similar pitfalls, including performance issues, with any state management system, hence dedicated state management solutions like Redux exist to address this.

The core of the argument is that complexity sometimes cannot be avoided. You can quickly wind up with moving this complexity elsewhere, e.g. by pulling in an additional library dependency. This results in having to learn, master and manage additional dependencies. Whether that's fundamentally better than the explicit and straight forward way depends on the scope of the project and its specific requirements. There's no silver bullet in any case and pros and cons with every approach.

[flying-pig]

Tbh I can't follow your logic here. You mentioned that in VanJS there are things that need to be careful with. But the same is true for other frameworks, even for plain Vanilla JavaScript. Thus what exactly the point that you're trying to make?

Complexity can't be avoided for extremely complex use cases. But that doesn't mean a simple solution that can work for most of the use cases has no value.