| It's definitely something I've thought about. There are a few reasons I still prefer ractive.set( keypath, value ), which I'll try and articulate: 1. It's explicit, and therefore more predictable. I get itchy when libraries take control out of my hands. Though I understand not everyone feels that way! 2. Performance. Getters and setters have a penalty (or did the last time I looked into it in any depth). 3. It only works for existing properties. With Ractive you don't have to declare the 'shape' of your entire model up-front - you can start with a completely empty model and set properties as and when it's convenient. (With ES6 and Object.observe maybe we can sidestep that issue one day.) 4. Performance (again). If you set several properties simultaneously (e.g. ractive.set({ opacity: 0.5, left: 10 }), or whatever), then updates won't happen until all the new data has been taken account of. 5. That irritating thing that happens when you try to do foo.bar.baz = 'bob' and you get an error because foo.bar is undefined. 6. There are some cases where you want to do something like ractive.set( keypath + '.complete', true ) - you can only do that with string-based keypaths. As for emn13's suggestion of Knockout-style observables, my own experience is that having to inherit from custom observable classes gets cumbersome quite quickly. But different strokes for different folks! |