The value judgement implied in "invented concepts" is kind of weird, and maybe gets at a core difference in how you and I think about this.

Frameworks have APIs; they define concepts. Learning concepts isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Especially if they are concepts which let you model your application more succinctly and efficiently.

What you mean is that you are leaving it to the user to learn (or conceive of) additional concepts which are external to Gea to in order to build non-trivial reactive applications.

But "Gea requires you to write less code / know fewer concepts" can be reframed as "Gea opts out of solving some types of vanilla JS boilerplate for you". When you don't give your users "concepts", they're still going to end up writing a lot of code and learning concepts, just not within your API.

I see mpalmer counters each specific claim, dashersw shifts to a slightly different argument rather than directly addressing the rebuttal.

One guy is doing the tech founder equivalent of a TED Talk ("my thing is more native and requires fewer concepts!") while another is quietly pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, and has receipts. One keeps doubling down because this is clearly his baby, while other is just some experienced dev who's watched too many "simple mutable state" frameworks turn into maintenance nightmares. One person is selling a vision. The other is explaining why that vision has been tried and mostly rejected by the industry for good reasons.

Only one of them is learning from the conversation.