I think the author is saying a potential issue of a vanilla implementation of immediate mode. The following text explains that there is already many optimizations for this

▲

blenderob a day ago | parent | next [-]

> I think the author is saying a potential issue of a vanilla implementation of immediate mode.

And you (pedro_movai) == the author? So you are saying that potential issue? Sorry, technically you are right that the author is saying that but I got confused with you referring to yourself in third person. Nothing wrong with it. Just want to confirm if you're the author.

	▲	a day ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

inigyou a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nothing in HTML is immediate mode. Any framework with a DOM is retained mode, by definition.

▲

pedro_movai a day ago | parent [-]

But the api is trying to simulate immediate mode using DOM

▲

inigyou a day ago | parent [-]

That's called an "abomination". The advantage of immediate mode is not storing a DOM. If you write immediate-mode code but it stores a DOM anyway then it's the worst of both worlds.

▲

sroerick a day ago | parent | next [-]

Isn't that literally React? I find it so immeasurably funny that in his effort to simplify code and invent immediate mode UI, Casey Muratori accidentally invented React

▲

Warwolt a day ago | parent | prev [-]

How would you do layouting without a tree structure in place? Not really sure what you're getting at here

	▲	inigyou a day ago \| parent [-]
		You have discovered one advantage of retained-mode designs.

▲

mollerhoj a day ago | parent | prev [-]

"I think the author is saying" - Wait, are you not the author? This seems dishonest.