"Arrow Components" proposal

[hexxt-git]

Idea

just like we have arrow functions in Javascript to define functions and especially callbacks, a similar concept could be implemented for components.

Why

arrow functions are much cleaner to read and they make it much more natural to think of them as "first-class citizen", pass them around in variables and as callbacks.

Propsed syntax:

let Button = () -> {
	...
}

or

let Button = () ==> {
	...
}

or any other variation on this

[leonidaz]

the compiler needs to know if something is a component vs a function since ripple is not jsx.

Ripple supports multiple components per file, you could have a mixture of components and regular JavaScript functions. So ripple needs to know which functions are components and which functions are regular functions. And it’s because, unlike in react, where regular functions just return JSX, ripple functions essentially use JS directly without returning anything, in the form of this JSX-like syntax.

[RATIU5]

I feel like this might stray too far from TSX, it might confuse newcomers. I think Ripple could benefit more from having a much more simple syntax.

[ansarizafar]

Ripple has a new and unique approach. To learn Ripple, we need to unlearn what we know about other frameworks.

[hexxt-git]

@RATIU5 I partially agree with on this, the different arrow does feel off, i just thought of this different way of writing it

let Button = component () => {}

this shorthand would be too useful to not consider because of this reason

[trueadm]

One of the implicit parts of arrow functions is that they don't require a body statement. However Ripple components are not functions, and thus this makes literally no sense. So this is definitely confusing and thus never going to happen.