It's just a native class. There really is no special syntax you need to pay attention to.

This isn't comparing apples to apples.

Solid has a Store primitive too, and it's a "plain old" proxied object.

How is `createStore` less native than `new Store()`? The `new` keyword didn't even exist in JS until 2015, and the underlying semantics (prototypical inheritance) never changed.

One of Solid's design goals is fine-grained reactivity for very high performance. That's why signals are getter functions, because calling them alerts the system to the precise "scope" that will need to be re-run when the value changes.

Since signals are functions, they can be composed easily, and passed around as values.

I'm not following—the `new` keyword has been with us since JavaScript's inception. You might be confusing it with the `class` syntax, but before that we could always `new` functions.

And yes, Solid has signals that require you to know how to write and work with them. I answered another comment on the thread about Solid stores—they also introduce a couple of gotchas and weird syntax. You just can't do `this.users.push(...)` or `this.users[2].loggedIn = true` in Solid stores.

Therefore `createStore` is less native than `new Store()`, because `new Store()` just gives you a plain (proxied) object you can manipulate in various ways and reactivity will persist thanks to the compiler.

And Gea's design goal is also fine-grained reactivity, which it delivers without getter functions in the code that the developer writes, but rather, the handlers are generated via the compiler.