lettertwo

This is a clever lib, nicely done! I'm writing in to say that I think your presentation of it could benefit from some focused revision.

In positioning something as an "answer to React", I think it's important to note what React's goals are. The React site (https://reactjs.org) describes itself as a declarative, component-based library for building UI that you can "learn once and write everywhere". The crucial thing to note here is that efficient updates to the DOM are explicitly not a core justification for React.

In fact, React's virtual DOM is often described by React developers as an implementation detail, not as a reason for React's existence and adoption. The appeal of React is in its declarative composition model for building UI, which frees developers from tedious data-bound state management on the DOM and beyond (react-dom, react-native, react-vr, etc.).

I believe this lib is better positioned as an alternative to so-called 'virtual DOM' implementations, rather than as an answer to React, since it provides no answer to core React features (declarative, composable components that can target all kinds of platforms).

In my experience, this approach really shines when you are building an "isomorphic" app. When the same code is expected to run in the browser and on the server, having a build tool that knows about both your entire dependency graph and your different build targets is a huge boon.

For example, you get hashed filenames (for far-future cache expiration in the browser) for free (no manifests or runtime reconciliation of names to assets necessary).