Quick poll: Which of these declarative UI trees looks the most legible to you?

[atd...@gmail.com]

Hi,

So I have a working implementation of a UI framework underway.

I've ended up providing ways to define the UI tree in a declarative way.

But to make sure it is legible, I have a gist with 3 examples of how the UI tree could be defined. (taken from an implementation of TODOMVC)

https://gist.github.com/atdiar/0d829060221ecb016c6001761b89d202

1. Full declarative structure specification but CSS classes are added outside of the tree.

Also, not very componentized.

2. Declarative but using components defined imperatively. CSS added in-tree as a modifier function.

3. Same as above but CSS is added outside of the tree.

Which one do you prefer? Any suggestions to improve?

==

[a2800276]

To be honest: on first glance, they all look identical to me apart from the missing AddClass statements in the  last example.
Would it be possible to have some examples with less subtle differences?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ sorry

[atd...@gmail.com]

Hey,

Yes, they all look kind of similar because they all use function composition and are variations of the same tree, just not with the same level of expansion.

I've made a new gist that shows more distinct approaches.

https://gist.github.com/atdiar/725844d85d4b9835c58f7f834570ab69

Thanks for checking, it's really appreciated.

[Henry]

Alternatively, you may experiment using structs with exported fields. It may be a bit less verbose.

[atd...@gmail.com]

Someone did suggest implementing the tree using structs to reduce indentation. 

I thought about it. However, there is no inheritance (thankfully!) and types are invariant (no covariance/contravariance) in Go so I'm afraid it wouldn't compose. 

Unless I'm missing something?