//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfilePosts








Loading...
One should make a quote-of-the-day-like API from inspiring Patak posts There is more and more good ones to pick from!
The main issue is about reactivity related to Svelte block, something hidden from the user before. Is an {#each} loop variable a $state? Is a snippet prop a $state? This requires either codebase layers digging or internal knowledge, which can only be mastered by tooling or time
So yeah, TL;DR I *love* the feature and using it, but a tooling improvement would be welcome, if possible, to avoid having to _think_ about reactivity in the template! :D
It's probably a tooling issue, though: the LSP should tell you if you miss reactivity, as it does in the script tag with state_referenced_locally. It successfully throws it as soon as you introduce a $state or $derived and depend on it in another {let ...}, but not with external data sources.
It's not that bad of a point by itself, because you can now opt-_out_ of the reactivity if you somehow need to, and you get the ability to be more expressive with $derived.by in the template, but yeah
...the "fear" of accidentally losing reactivity. With @const, reactivity was taken for granted (as for every state used in the template); now, you have to be careful about it. It's the other side of the coin of my "same syntax" pro-point: explicit reactivity made its way into the template.