Hacker News Reader

Comment by zodiac | Hacker News Reader

The definitions are important. I agree with your message (your thing is better than say rails templating) but virtual DOM basically means "react-style virtual DOM, implemented in client side JavaScript, with fast diff support, used to infer updates" now, instead of your definition of it.

View on HN

When did React become the definition of anything? Why not Seaside? They came up with the idea around 15 years before React entered the scene. This is pure stupid, straight through. It's a DOM and it's virtual, hence a virtual DOM.

No it's not stupid - your etymology makes much less sense to me. DOM in virtual DOM refers to the tree that browsers use internally and provide an API against, not just any tree like structure that can be serialized to HTML (which seems to be your definition). That's why it's referred to as "the DOM" with a definite article. The "virtual" part then means something like "shadow" as in a copy that is kept in sync. By that definition you didn't create a "virtual DOM". What is your definition of "virtual", "DOM" and "virtual DOM"?

Feel free to define whatever however you want. This is a virtual DOM, because that is what the expression means; who's most popular right now matters not at all. And the only reason you feel obliged to drag the discussion down to this level is because it makes you feel insecure. You would do well to learn to like that feeling instead, that leads forward.

Well, I'm asking you to tell me why you think your thing is a "virtual DOM". And your only response on this thread is "this is a virtual DOM, because that is what the expression means". Why is it what the expression means?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com