[nine_k]

Disclaimer: I only read description, did not try to code.

What I like: the smart compiler that determines the actual dependencies, no need to declare them. Apparently the compiler is so smart as to compute the DOM diffs at compile time, which eliminates the need for virtual DOM.

What kills it for me: the two-way binding. The binding should be one-way to preserve your sanity as the project grows. Two-way bindings allow to build highly reactive Ruby Goldberg machines where anything can trigger anything else, and you won't know, because it's just a mutation of a property somewhere, indistinguishable from a non-reactive mutation. Two-way bindings are callback hell squared.

I want one-way data binding, immutability, and basically FRP. The biggest demonstration of FRP's immense real-life success is not React. It's the spreadsheet.

This may be good for small pieces of interactivity. But I likely would go for HTMX for that.

[dashersw]

Hi, the author of Gea here. I have a long history of thinking about one- and two-way bindings, and I believe JavaScript as the language has a great solution to this. If you pass an object to a function, it's two-way bound, and if you pass a primitive, it's one-way bound. So I built Gea to replicate this. If users choose to pass an object in a one-way bound scenario, they could create a new object and pass that in, and it would work.

By the way, just as a syntactic sugar, Gea supports function components, too.

[nine_k]

Thank you for your project, it's elegant! It's pretty obvious that one-way binding is a two-way binding with one of the roads not taken. I see that e.g. a careful naming scheme could make it obvious what is reactive, and what is not.

OTOH React arrived where it's now not by allowing a particular approach, but by enforcing it.