5 ms·

"...isn't quite right — it would break _all_ your existing code that wasn't in .svelte files." What if it is opt-out reactivity in .svelte files and opt-in rea

• rich_harris 3y ago
  That would be a _terrible_ outcome. Things would routinely break, and code would be vastly more confusing.
  • Phillippe 3y ago
    I love all the changes except that single thing with let count = $state(0); I'm just brainstorming here, but what about an optional $reactive rune where everything in that is reactive by default? $reactive(() => { let name = 'world'; }); vs let name = $state('world');
    • Phillippe 3y ago
      Maybe reuse the $:{} here, tho that would probably be really confusing for svelte 4 developers lol $:{ let name = 'world'; }; vs let name = $state('world'); $: is valid javascript right? So that should also work in .js/.ts files I assume
      • codelikeawolf 3y ago
        I think the reason they didn't opt for this approach is that putting stuff in a {} block creates its own scope, so any variables declared within that block are inaccessible from outside said scope. The $: label syntax is valid JavaScript, but allowing scoped variables to be accessible outside of scope is very invalid JavaScript.
    • omnimus 3y ago
      They mentioned that the team tried around 50 different variations. Meaning they spent a lot more time than a comment on this. I would trust they know what they are doing considering track record of Svelte team. Tbh this seems kinda rude. Maybe check github i am sure the whole journey can be seen there.
      • Phillippe 3y ago
        I don't mean to be rude, I'm just brainstorming. I'm sure they have thought about it I'm just commenting in the small chance that they haven't