This isn't true. DOM access is fast. DOM manipulation is also fast. The issue is many DOM manipulations happening all at once constantly that trigger redraws. Redrawing the DOM can also be fast if the particular DOM being redrawn is relatively small.
React was created because Facebook's DOM was enormous. And they wanted to constantly redraw the screen on every single interaction. So manipulating multiple elements simultaneously caused their rendering to be slow. So they basically found a way to package them all into a single redraw, making it seem faster.
It’s the interlacing that’s the cost. Read after write forces redraw.
My big win on my first AJAX app was splitting read and write into two phases to reduce a page load from 30s on IE6 down to about 2 seconds. I didn’t even have to rearchitect. It was one loop in one (maybe 2) functions. Just had to split it into 2 loops.
If React wins (which I don’t agree that it does, but don’t want to have that argument), it’s that it allows you to compose tricks like this across a whole page instead of one component type.
All of the issues with reflow, layout invalidation, forced layout on property access, recalculating styles, which require careful solutions like batching change operations and optimized rendering strategies, will also affect anything operating on the DOM via WASM.
The point stands; maybe a faster VDOM can be built in a compile-to-wasm language, though the bottleneck will remain the browser's DOM API and rendering, not the language interpreter.
I guess for people who spend most of their time in fantasy lands, it seems jarring for a storyteller to tell a story about anything that could actually potentially happen in reality. Or even just actually shown the results of violence. Or even depict anything that's personally distasteful to them.
If one wants a story in which nothing particularly bad happens to female characters or any characters at all, they should seek out children's literature.
Maybe this is just my weird worldview given I grew up watching Law and Order SVU. But I would find stories quite boring if authors weren't allowed to depict anything that's at all distasteful to some particular subset of humans.
I just find the point of view from this article immature and lacking in understanding of the full scope of possible storytelling.
That is certainly an unusual take, if your sense of enjoyment of stories came from the reaction of others. We've all grown up watching different things that have been depicted in a variety of ways, so we can't really assume the same baseline and derive insights from that. It's simpler to judge a work in its own merit (or lack of).
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say?
How exactly does one "judge a work in its own merit?"
How do you determine whether a movie is good or not? In a vacuum? Measuring its traits against itself?
How can anything at all be judged "on its own merits" without considering the scope of other things related to it?
How does this person writing the article judge the story against itself when they make the claim that this story is bad because men are never sexually assaulted in stories. I can name 2 popular movies off the top of my head (Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption) that had graphic depictions of men being raped and sexually assaulted.
The writer measured the story they were reviewing against the broader world. Not against itself. Therefore, considering the broader world, there's nothing particularly miscreant about a story portraying violence against a human being (male or female).
The writer's incorrect belief that men are never sexually assaulted in film and TV shows is simply limited by their immaturity and lack of knowledge of the many stories that have been told in different mediums for decades.
The distinction between story telling and show business - sometimes content merely exists for shock value as a publicity stunt. For example, I had no idea Andor had another season.
Audience and brand - a jarring tonal shift undermines the story. If Game of Thrones ended with everyone singing kumbyah and holding hands, that would upset a lot of people (even more than the current ending, if that's possible). Meanwhile, it would be inappropriate to have Harry Potter end in genocide.
The increasing displays of violence in media and its effect on the psyche - there are real life examples of social media content moderators getting PTSD from exposure to harmful content. Just because something is fictional doesn't mean it can't cause harm, and just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean it's valid art.
Let's imagine for a moment that it was instead of Andor and sexual assault, an article about Harry Potter and violence against children.
And instead of claiming that anyone who writes a story in which an attractive woman is sexually assaulted has a secret attraction to sexual assault against women, she claimed that J.K Rowling secretly wanted to murder children because one of her characters wanted to do that.
Would that be a good argument?
I'm simply disagreeing with the underlying premise of the article, which is that the things that happen in a storyteller's stories illustrate some internal desire of the storyteller.
> I'm simply disagreeing with the underlying premise of the article, which is that the things that happen in a storyteller's stories illustrate some internal desire of the storyteller.
I see it differently. When the author includes something controversial that fits poorly in their story, and they say they did it because it's realistic, it's worth talking about why they would say that.
I don't think the conclusion is saying that Gilroy likes sexual assault against women, just that he would shoehorn "attractive woman gets assaulted" into his story because he believes that stereotype, to the detriment of viewers (who didn't want to see it), the story (which it doesn't fit), and society (which doesn't need this harmful idea reinforced / could have benefitted from a better look at the topic).
