> I think the debate is now essentially over, the reactive approach is winning. Is this really true? My intuition is that reactive UIs are fantastic for widget

> I think the debate is now essentially over, the reactive approach is winning. Is this really true? My intuition is that reactive UIs are fantastic for widgets and "wraps a database" type apps, but fall flat when it comes to deeply interactive software where performance and responsiveness is paramount — i.e. where there's a tight feedback loop between user input and rendering, and where the model state tends to be quite large and granular. (DAWs, drawing/illustration software, movie editors, mapping applications, text editors, etc.) I also get the sense that most revolutionary or industry-changing software falls into this category. So how can the reactive approach be anything other than a small tool in the app developer's toolbox? Could somebody dissuade me from this notion? In my admittedly limited experience with the reactive paradigm, I feel like I run into a wall as soon as I've implemented all the basic widgets and need to actually work on the main content view of my app. It doesn't feel like it could ever be a good fit for software that pushes boundaries. (Perhaps this is an entirely separate matter from "object-oriented UI" vs. "reactive UI", though. Or maybe I'm "using it wrong", in the sense that reactive UIs are meant to be mostly about widgets and not complex interactive views. But then I often hear people talk about reactive UI as the future of app development, so I'm not sure.)