Components let you split the UI into independent, reusable pieces, and think about each piece in isolation.

The ecosystem behind React gave you too many choices of this sort, which fragmented the tech stack and caused the infamous “Javascript fatigue”.

Flutter vs React Native vs Xamarin for Cross Platform Development

React and Svelte are very similar in many ways, but what I've found is that in all the little ways that they are different, I prefer Svelte.

If I were to sum up why in one sentence, it's because I don't miss useEffect. I understand why it exists, I understand the approach React takes, and there are benefits of its approach. But writing complex React components feels more like admin; a constant worry that I'll miss a dependency in my useEffect call and end up crashing my browser session. With Svelte I don't have that lingering feeling, and that's what I've come to enjoy.

One gripe I've had with this approach is that you lose the visual cues that you're passing children into the Box component; they now aren't nested within the Box when you render them like we're used to in HTML; it's now up to you to read the props and spot which ones are being used to provide children.

Svelte is different in that by default most of your code is only going to run once; a console.log('foo') line in a component will only run when that component is first rendered.

Here's where I start to have a preference for Svelte; the two are very similar but once I got used to Svelte I found that React felt like jumping through hoops. You can't create a worker instance, it has to go in a useRef, and then you can't easily pull code out into a function without then requiring useCallback so it can be a safe dependency on useEffect. With Svelte I write code that's closer to "plain" JavaScript, whereas in React more of my code is wrapped in a React primitive.

One part of React that I've always championed is how it's just JavaScript. I like that in React you don't use a distinct template syntax and instead embed JavaScript, compared to Svelte's templating language

I will always find React's approach easier - at least in my head - and I think more friendly to people familiar with JavaScript who are learning a library.

because React components are re-executed every time the component re-renders, you can easily end up with thousands of workers being created! It's essential to use useRef to avoid this problem by maintaining a reference to the worker that you've created.

Talking of context, that's much closer to the approach I take with Svelte and use a writable store.

副作用内からなぜ関数を返したのか？ これこそが副作用のクリーンアップのためのオプションの仕組みです。すべての副作用は、それをクリーンアップするための関数を返すことができます。これにより購読を開始するためのロジックと解除するためのロジックを並べて書くことができます。両方とも同じ副作用の一部なのです！ React は具体的には副作用のクリーンアップをいつ発生させるのか？ React はコンポーネントがアンマウントされるときにクリーンアップを実行します。しかし、すでに学んだ通り、副作用は 1 回だけでなく毎回のレンダー時に実行されます。このため React は、ひとつ前のレンダーによる副作用を、次回の副作用を実行する前にもクリーンアップします。この後で、これがなぜバグの回避につながるのか、そしてこれがパフォーマンスの問題を引き起こしている場合にどのようにしてこの挙動を止めるのかについて説明します。 補足 副作用から名前付きの関数を返す必要はありません。ここでは目的を明示するために cleanup という名前にしましたが、アロー関数を返すことも別の名前を付けることも可能です。 まとめ useEffect を用いることで、コンポーネントのレンダー後に実行される様々な種類の副作用を表現できることを学びました。いくつかの副作用はクリーンアップが必要である可能性があり、その場合は関数を返します： useEffect(() => { function handleStatusChange(status) { setIsOnline(status.isOnline); } ChatAPI.subscribeToFriendStatus(props.friend.id, handleStatusChange); return () => { ChatAPI.unsubscribeFromFriendStatus(props.friend.id, handleStatusChange); }; }); クリーンアップフェーズが必要ない副作用もあり、その場合は何も返す必要はありません。 useEffect(() => { document.title = `You clicked ${count} times`; }); 副作用フックは両方のユースケースをひとつの API に統合します。 副作用フックの動作について十分わかったと感じる場合や、逆にもううんざりだという場合は、ここで次のページ（フックのルールについて）に進んでも構いません。 副作用を使う場合のヒント このページの残りの部分では、経験のある React 利用者が興味を持つかもしれない useEffect の深い概念について説明します。今すぐ読み進める必要があるとは思わないでください。副作用フックについて詳細が知りたくなったらいつでもこのページに戻ってくればいいのです。 ヒント：関心を分離するために複数の副作用を使う フックを導入する動機のページで述べた問題のひとつは、しばしばそれぞれのライフサイクルメソッドに関連のないロジックが含まれ、一方で関連するロジックが複数のメソッドに分割されてしまう、ということです。以下に示すのは、これまでの例で挙げたカウンタとフレンド状態インジケータとを組み合わせたコンポーネントです。 class FriendStatusWithCounter extends React.Component { constructor(props) { super(props); this.state = { count: 0, isOnline: null }; this.handleStatusChange = this.handleStatusChange.bind(this); } componentDidMount() { document.title = `You clicked ${this.state.count} times`; ChatAPI.subscribeToFriendStatus( this.props.friend.id, this.handleStatusChange ); } componentDidUpdate() { document.title = `You clicked ${this.state.count} times`; } componentWillUnmount() { ChatAPI.unsubscribeFromFriendStatus( this.props.friend.id, this.handleStatusChange ); } handleStatusChange(status) { this.setState({ isOnline: status.isOnline }); } // ... ここで、document.title を設定するためのロジックが componentDidMount と componentDidUpdate に分離してしまっていることに注意してください。データ購読のためのロジックもやはり componentDidMount と componentWillUnmount とに分離しています。そして componentDidMount には両方の仕事のためのコードが含まれています。 ではフックはどのようにこの問題を解決するのでしょうか？ ステートフックを複数回呼べるのと同様の方法で、副作用を複数回利用することができます。このため、互いに関係のないロジックは別の副作用に分離することが可能です。 function FriendStatusWithCounter(props) { const [count, setCount] = useState(0); useEffect(() => { document.title = `You clicked ${count} times`; }); const [isOnline, setIsOnline] = useState(null); useEffect(() => { function handleStatusChange(status) { setIsOnline(status.isOnline); } ChatAPI.subscribeToFriendStatus(props.friend.id, handleStatusChange); return () => { ChatAPI.unsubscribeFromFriendStatus(props.friend.id, handleStatusChange); }; }); // ... } フックを使うことで、ライフサイクルのメソッド名に基づくのではなく、実際に何をやっているのかに基づいてコードを分割できます。React はコンポーネントで利用されているすべての副作用を、指定されている順番で適用していきます。 解説：なぜ副作用は毎回の更新ごとに実行されるのか クラスに慣れていれば、なぜクリーンアップフェーズは、アンマウント時の 1 度だけではなく再レンダー時に毎回発生するのか、と不思議に思っているかもしれません。実践的な例で、この設計によりなぜバグの少ないコンポーネントが作れるようになるのか見てみましょう。 このページの前の部分で、フレンドがオンラインかどうかを表示する FriendStatus コンポーネントの例を示しました。このクラスでは this.props の中にある friend.id を参照して、コンポーネントがマウントした後にフレンドのステータスを購読し、アンマウント時には購読を解除します： componentDidMount() { ChatAPI.subscribeToFriendStatus( this.props.friend.id, this.handleStatusChange ); } componentWillUnmount() { ChatAPI.unsubscribeFromFriendStatus( this.props.friend.id, this.handleStatusChange ); } ですがコンポーネントが表示されている最中に friend プロパティが変わったらどうなるのでしょうか？ このコンポーネントは間違ったフレンドのオンラインステータスを表示し続けてしまいます。これはバグです。しかも誤ったフレンド ID を使って購読解除を呼び出してしまうため、アンマウント時にメモリリークやクラッシュを引き起こしてしまうでしょう。 クラスコンポーネントの場合は、このようなケースに対処するために componentDidUpdate を加える必要がありました。 componentDidMount() { ChatAPI.subscribeToFriendStatus( this.props.friend.id, this.handleStatusChange ); } componentDidUpdate(prevProps) { // Unsubscribe from the previous friend.id ChatAPI.unsubscribeFromFriendStatus( prevProps.friend.id, this.handleStatusChange ); // Subscribe to the next friend.id ChatAPI.subscribeToFriendStatus( this.props.friend.id, this.handleStatusChange ); } componentWillUnmount() { ChatAPI.unsubscribeFromFriendStatus( this.props.friend.id, this.handleStatusChange ); } 適切な componentDidUpdate 処理をし忘れることが、React アプリケーションにおけるよくあるバグの原因となっていました。 ではこのコンポーネントのフックを利用したバージョンを見てみましょう。 function FriendStatus(props) { // ... useEffect(() => { // ... ChatAPI.subscribeToFriendStatus(props.friend.id, handleStatusChange); return () => { ChatAPI.unsubscribeFromFriendStatus(props.friend.id, handleStatusChange); }; }); 動作は変わっておらず、前述のバグも起こらなくなります。 useEffect はデフォルトで更新を処理するため、更新のための特別なコードは不要です。新しい副作用を適用する前に、ひとつ前の副作用をクリーンアップします。これを例示するため、このコンポーネントが経時的に発生させる可能性のある購読登録と購読解除のシーケンスを示します： // Mount with { friend: { id: 100 } } props ChatAPI.subscribeToFriendStatus(100, handleStatusChange); // Run first effect // Update with { friend: { id: 200 } } props ChatAPI.unsubscribeFromFriendStatus(100, handleStatusChange); // Clean up previous effect ChatAPI.subscribeToFriendStatus(200, handleStatusChange); // Run next effect // Update with { friend: { id: 300 } } props ChatAPI.unsubscribeFromFriendStatus(200, handleStatusChange); // Clean up previous effect ChatAPI.subscribeToFriendStatus(300, handleStatusChange); // Run next effect // Unmount ChatAPI.unsubscribeFromFriendStatus(300, handleStatusChange); // Clean up last effect この挙動によりデフォルトで一貫性を保証することができ、クラスコンポーネントでよく見られた更新ロジック書き忘れによるバグを防止することができます。 ヒント：副作用のスキップによるパフォーマンス改善 いくつかの場合では、副作用のクリーンアップと適用とをレンダーごとに毎回行うことはパフォーマンスの問題を引き起こす可能性があります。クラスコンポーネントの場合、この問題は componentDidUpdate の内部で prevProps や prevState と比較するコードを加えることで解決できました。 componentDidUpdate(prevProps, prevState) { if (prevState.count !== this.state.count) { document.title = `You clicked ${this.state.count} times`; } } これはよくある要求なので、useEffect フックの API にはこの動作が組み込まれています。再レンダー間で特定の値が変わっていない場合には副作用の適用をスキップするよう、React に伝えることができるのです。そのためには、useEffect のオプションの第 2 引数として配列を渡してください。 useEffect(() => { document.title = `You clicked ${count} times`; }, [count]); // Only re-run the effect if count changes 上記の例では、第 2 引数として [count] を渡しています。どういう意味でしょうか？ もし count が 5 で、次回のコンポーネントのレンダー時にも count がまだ 5 であった場合、React は前回のレンダー時に覚えておいた [5] と今回のレンダーの [5] とを比較します。配列内のすべての要素が同一 (5 === 5) ですので、React は副作用をスキップします。これが最適化です。 再レンダー時に count が 6 に変更されている場合、前回レンダー時に覚えておいた [5] と今回のレンダー時の [6] という配列とを比較します。今回は 5 !== 6 ですので React は副作用を再適用します。配列内に複数の要素がある場合、React は配列内の要素のうちひとつでも変わっている場合に副作用を再実行します。 クリーンアップフェーズがある副作用でも同様に動作します： useEffect(() => { function handleStatusChange(status) { setIsOnline(status.isOnline); } ChatAPI.subscribeToFriendStatus(props.friend.id, handleStatusChange); return () => { ChatAPI.unsubscribeFromFriendStatus(props.friend.id, handleStatusChange); }; }, [props.friend.id]); // Only re-subscribe if props.friend.id changes 将来的には、ビルド時の変換で第 2 引数を自動で加えられるようになるかもしれません。 補足 この最適化を利用する場合、時間の経過とともに変化し副作用によって利用される、コンポーネントスコープの値（props や state など）がすべて配列に含まれていることを確認してください。さもないとあなたのコードは以前のレンダー時の古い値を参照してしまうことになります。その他の最適化のオプションについてはフック API リファレンスで説明しています。 もしも副作用とそのクリーンアップを 1 度だけ（マウント時とアンマウント時にのみ）実行したいという場合、空の配列 ([]) を第 2 引数として渡すことができます。こうすることで、あなたの副作用は props や state の値のいずれにも依存していないため再実行する必要が一切ない、ということを React に伝えることができます。これは特別なケースとして処理されているわけではなく、依存配列を普通に処理すればそうなるというだけの話です。 空の配列 ([]) を渡した場合、副作用内では props と state の値は常にその初期値のままになります。[] を渡すことはおなじみの componentDidMount と componentWillUnmount による概念と似ているように感じるでしょうが、通常はこちらやこちらのように、副作用を過度に再実行しないためのよりよい解決方法があります。また useEffect はブラウザが描画し終えた後まで遅延されますので、追加の作業をしてもそれほど問題にならないということもお忘れなく。 eslint-plugin-react-hooks パッケージの exhaustive-deps ルールを有効にすることをお勧めします。これは依存の配列が正しく記述されていない場合に警告し、修正を提案します。 次のステップ おめでとうございます！ 長いページでしたが、最終的に副作用に関するほとんどの疑問が解決していることを望みます。これでステートフックと副作用フックの両方を学んだので、それらを組み合わせてやれることがたくさんあります。クラスコンポーネントにおけるほとんどのユースケースがカバーされていますが、足りない部分については他のフックが役立つかもしれません。 また、動機のところで述べた問題をフックがどのように解決するのかについてもわかり始めてきたでしょう。副作用のクリーンアップがどのようにして componentDidUpdate と componentWillUnmount との間でのコードの重複を防ぎ、関係したコードを並べて書くことができるようにし、バグの少ないコードを記述できるようにするのかを見てきました。また目的別に副作用を分割する方法も学びましたが、これはクラスでは全く不可能なことでした。 この時点で、一体フックがどのように動作しているのか疑問に感じているかもしれません。useState のそれぞれの呼び出しがどの state 変数に対応しているのかを、React はどのようにして知るのでしょうか？ 更新のたびに、前回と今回の副作用とを React はどのように対応付けるのでしょうか？ 次のページではフックのルールについて学びます — このルールはフックが動作するために必須のものです。Is this page useful?このページを編集する

What are the current trends in JavaScript development?

React Native vs Flutter. What to Choose for Your Next Project

we plan to migrate to Angular 1, and we'll finish out the decade on React

The alternative is uncontrolled components, where form data is handled by the DOM itself.

PopupState HelperTo make managing the popover state easier, we can use the material-ui-popup-state library to manage the state.

React abstracts the DOM with functionally pure declarative rendering and provides escape hatches back to mutable imperative DOM land. This is a profound philosophical difference that Rich gave a talk about.

It's true that Svelte does not allow you to map over children like React, but its slot API and <svelte:component> provide similarly powerful composition. You can pass component constructors as props and instantiate them with <svelte:component>, and use slots and their let bindings for higher order composition. It sounds like you're thinking in virtual DOM idioms instead of Svelte's.

My frustration is mainly from Svelte's choices that are very un-JavaScript-like. It doesn't have to be "like React/Vue". React is React because it doesn't restrict what you can do with JavaScript for the most part. It's just common FP practice to fold/map.

In this world of digitization, it is essential that you bring your business to the online platforms. The fact is, React Native is one of the most emerging technologies for developing the best application for your business.

For use$ since svelte is never going to support actions for components, i designed something that reminds React hooks that will in some ways replace this feature.

Another difference is that context in Svelte does not insert anything into the visual component tree. There is no <Context.Provider> element like in React

In Svelte, all reactive statements are memoized. Instead of const var = useMemo(() => expression, dependencies), you can use $: var = expression. Notice with Svelte, you don't need to declare the dependencies. The compiler infers them for you.

Although Capacitor is developed by Ionic, you can use it in combination with any framework and UI library you want. In fact, Capacitor itself promotes using it with whatever framework you want.

Frontend frameworks are a positive sum game! Svelte has no monopoly on the compiler paradigm either. Just like I think React is worth learning for the mental model it imparts, where UI is a (pure) function of state, I think the frontend framework-as-compiler paradigm is worth understanding. We're going to see a lot more of it because the tradeoffs are fantastic, to where it'll be a boring talking point before we know it.

Today, more and more businesses are inclined towards react native due to the innumerable benefits it offers. React native apps have completely changed the mobile app development process but the performance of the app remains extraordinary as before.

I use a mutator and use it's changeValue function to 'change' the value of the relevant field (I supply the same value). This in turn notifies all relevant parties of the change to the form's state, and a validation is triggered.

Some user experience issue with the proposed solution: This won't show up the inline field error message if you just hit on submit and other fields already contained errors since the code on the onSubmit won't be hit

This is for a time picker. If you're picking times for today, you may pick a time that is 15 minutes from now. It's valid now because it's currently in the future. If you don't touch the form for the next 20 minutes then click submit, the submission should be prevented because your selected time is now 5 minutes in the past.

Fonk is framework extension, and can be easily plugged into many libraries / frameworks, in this documentation you will find integrations with:

React Final Forms is a great library, an enhanced version of Redux Form

Form validation can get complex (synchronous validations, asynchronous validations, record validations, field validations, internationalization, schemas definitions...). To cope with these challenges we will leverage this into Fonk and Fonk Final Form adaptor for a React Final Form seamless integration.

Image a situation wherein you have just launched your app. But the data of your app is not being properly displayed or you are not able to fetch the data that is being entered by the users. What will be the impression of your app in the user’s mind?

Sometimes you might need to use an element other than a native <button>. useButton supports this via the elementType prop. When used with an element other than a native button, useButton automatically applies the necessary ARIA roles and attributes to ensure that the element is exposed to assistive technology as a button.

const field = state.fields[name] if (field) { field.data = { ...field.data, ...data } }

suite of over 30 separate packages of React visualization primitives that fall into several categories (Figure 2). It is un-opinionated on state management, animation, and styling so it can integrate with any React codebase, and its emphasis on modularity (similar to D3) lets you keep your bundle sizes down by only using the packages you need to create your reusable chart library or a custom one-off chart.

In our research (Figure 1), we found that existing React visualization libraries are often high-level abstractions and optimized for ease of use (i.e., fewer lines of code) at the expense of expressivity. None offer the expressivity of D3 primitives and many don’t allow for the optimization we want in production because computation, animations, state management, styles, and rendering are all encapsulated.

because D3 and React both want to own DOM manipulation, we’ve found that it’s best to only use D3 for the math and React for the DOM because two mental models for updating the DOM opens the door for bugs to sneak in. However, using D3 solely for math means a significant amount of its (DOM-based) functionality is not available for use: selection.join, zoom, drag, brush, and transitions. Additionally, as mentioned above, D3 has its own learning curve and we would like developers to feel like they are writing native React code with standard APIs and familiar patterns.

Leveraging React and its ecosystem would provide learnability and performance, and a low-level, modular API would deliver expressivity.

You should not create a new debounce function on every render with: return new Promise(resolve => { debounce(() => resolve(this.getIsNameUnique(name)), 2000); }); Instead you should just wrap your whole function isNameUnique with the debounce (see my sandbox). By creating a new debounce function on every hit, it cannot 'remember' that is was called or that is will be called again. This will prevent the debouncing.

FormValidation can be used with popular JavaScript frameworks such as React, Preact, Vue, Svelte, etc.

mixing the turing complete of javascript with the markup of HTML eliminates the readability of JSX so that it is actually harder to parse than a solution like hyperscript

I'm personally open to any other solutions, especially in how we might be able to untie from React, but, for now, inline-XML markup (JSX) is OK with me.

I've recently started playing with segmentio/deku, an alternative to React, and I'm also using Babel to transpile my js and jsx code.

Hyperscript syntax for React.js markup

In React 0.12 time frame we did a bunch of small changes to how key, ref and defaultProps works. Particularly, they get resolved early on in the React.createElement(...) call. This made sense when everything was classes, but since then, we've introduced function components. Hooks have also make function components more prevalent. It might be time to reevaluate some of those designs to simplify things (at least for function components).

In the next major, we'll start copying the ref onto both the props and the element.ref. React will now use the props.ref as the source of truth for forwardRef and classes and it will still create a shallow copy of props that excludes the ref in these cases. At the same time, we'll add a getter for element.ref in DEV that warns if you access it. The upgrade path is now to just access it off props if you need it from the element.

This proposal simplifies how React.createElement works and ultimately lets us remove the need for forwardRef.

For event listeners we support the standard jsx naming convention onEventname (this is converted to on:eventname in svelte) as well.

Facebook’s React has an optional language extension that enables you to embed HTML inside JavaScript. This extension can make your code more concise, but it also breaks compatibility with the rest of the JavaScript ecosystem. ECMAScript 6 will have template strings [1], which enable you to implement JSX (or something close to it) inside the language.

hyperx(React.createElement)

Since “virtual DOM” is more of a pattern than a specific technology, people sometimes say it to mean different things. In React world, the term “virtual DOM” is usually associated with React elements since they are the objects representing the user interface

Deku is a library for rendering interfaces using pure functions and virtual DOM.

Then at some moment I just stumbled upon limitations and inexpressiveness of templates and started to use JSX everywhere — and because JSX was not a typical thing for Vue I switched to React over time. I don’t want to make a step back.

There is a killer feature of vDOM that Svelte has nothing to replace with. It is the ability to treat component hierarchy as an object.

Typically, unified compilers return string. This compiler returns a ReactElement.

To fix our Svelte version you might think we could use beforeUpdate or afterUpdate, but these lifecycle functions are related to the DOM being updated, not to prop updates. We only want to rerun our fetching when the album prop is changed.

Context can only store a single value, not an indefinite set of values each with its own consumers.

We want to improve this while keeping both the API and the semantics and behavior as Reactish as possible.

Recoil defines a directed graph orthogonal to but also intrinsic and attached to your React tree.

Component state can only be shared by pushing it up to the common ancestor, but this might include a huge tree that then needs to re-render.

For reasons of compatibility and simplicity, it's best to use React's built-in state management capabilities rather than external global state.

I think Svelte has some things to learn from React hooks.

While react hooks were one of the catalysts for v3 we don't agree with with the APIs or the model and won't be emulating it.

Hooks embrace JavaScript closures and avoid introducing React-specific APIs where JavaScript already provides a solution.

You want to write maintainable tests that give you high confidence that your components are working for your users. As a part of this goal, you want your tests to avoid including implementation details so refactors of your components (changes to implementation but not functionality) don't break your tests and slow you and your team down.

we are using RTL's findBy search variant to wait for element(s) which appear eventually.

For any element that isn't there yet but will be there eventually, use findBy over getBy or queryBy. If you assert for a missing element, use queryBy. Otherwise default to getBy

The neat thing about getByRole: it shows all the selectable roles if you provide a role that isn't available in the rendered component's HTML:

// recommended

Whereas the describe-block is the test suite, the test-block (which also can be named it instead of test) is the test case. A test suite can have multiple test cases and a test case doesn't have to be in a test suite. What you put into the test cases are called assertions (e.g. expect in Jest) which either turn out to be successful (green) or erroneous (red). Here we have two assertions which should turn out successful:

In general it is recommended you handle forms in this "controlled" manner. In some cases it might make sense to manage the form state outside of Solid via refs. These "uncontrolled" forms can also work. Just be conscious of the difference as mixing approaches can lead to unexpected results.

So while Solid's JSX and might resemble React it by no means works like React and there should be no illusions that a JSX library will just work with Solid. Afterall, there are no JSX libraries, as they all work without JSX, only HyperScript or React ones.

Remember even though the syntax is almost identical, there are significant differences between how Solid's JSX works and a library like React.

Solid supports most React features like Fragments, Portals, Context, Suspense, Error Boundaries, Lazy Components, Async Rendering, Implicit Event Delegation, SSR

I used them a bit and realized almost immediately they felt like a leaky abstraction.

There's one downside to Reacts reactivity model - the hooks (useState and useEffect) have to always be called in the same order and you can't put them inside an if block.

It's possible to run a function whenever some reactive state changes using the useEffect hook. In the example we log the length of the todoList whenever it changes. The first argument to useEffect is the function we want to run, and the second is a list of reactive values to track - whenever one of these values changes the effect will run again.

MobX - for me personally MobX is a far better way to manage state than React Hooks. It doesn't care about the UI layer so it can be used outside the React ecosystem, and it's simple to mutate data.

derived values are simple to declare

Solid is a declarative JavaScript library for creating user interfaces. It's kinda like if React and Svelte had a baby.

This library exports a single React Hook, useMethods, which has all the power of useReducer but none of the ceremony that comes with actions and dispatchers.

Keep in mind that the values in meta are dependent on you having subscribed to them with the subscription prop.

useField() returns FieldRenderProps. It will manage the rerendering of any component you use it in, i.e. the component will only rerender if the field state subscribed to via useField() changes.

for example, reactive declarations essentially do the work of React's useMemo, useCallback and useEffect without the boilerplate (or indeed the garbage collection overhead of creating inline functions and arrays on each state change).

urql is a GraphQL client that exposes a set of helpers for several frameworks.

One package to get a working GraphQL client in React, Preact, and Svelte

This is the same as useEffect in React, incidentally — the function must be synchronous in order to avoid race conditions.

I think Svelte's approach where it replaces component instances with the component markup is vastly superior to Angular and the other frameworks. It gives the developer more control over what the DOM structure looks like at runtime—which means better performance and fewer CSS headaches, and also allows the developer to create very powerful recursive components.

Since one of Svelte's main principles is reacting only to data changes (as opposed to re-render the whole app with the full state all the time)

Re Object.keys(undefined), I think I'm ok with that failing. AFAIK it would also fail in React

The more I think about this, the more I think that maybe React already has the right solution to this particular issue, and we're tying ourselves in knots trying to avoid unnecessary re-rendering. Basically, this JSX... <Foo {...a} b={1} {...c} d={2}/> ...translates to this JS: React.createElement(Foo, _extends({}, a, { b: 1 }, c, { d: 2 })); If we did the same thing (i.e. bail out of the optimisation allowed by knowing the attribute names ahead of time), our lives would get a lot simpler, and the performance characteristics would be pretty similar in all but somewhat contrived scenarios, I think. (It'll still be faster than React, anyway!)