[Feature Request] Transpile away `style9` runtime call about style9 HOT 5 OPEN

Although Facebook stylex is not officially open-sourced, it does publish an alpha version on npm:

https://unpkg.com/browse/@stylexjs/[email protected]/lib/index.js

And we might be able to learn something from it.

from style9.

For styles defined in the same file this should be fairly easy. It may also be more intuitive, since it removes the magic(i.e. lie) of styles being a function. Having a single way of generating class names is also a plus. When it comes to styles defined in other files the compiler will have to bail and stick to using the runtime, which is fine.

Let me know how it goes and what your opinion on the styles() vs style9() syntax is

from style9.

For styles defined in the same file this should be fairly easy. It may also be more intuitive, since it removes the magic(i.e. lie) of styles being a function. Having a single way of generating class names is also a plus. When it comes to styles defined in other files the compiler will have to bail and stick to using the runtime, which is fine.

Let me know how it goes and what your opinion on the styles() vs style9() syntax is

Personally, I'd prefer the new way (without styles being a function). It enables IDE to find the original style definition:

With Go to definition I can find what styles.card is.

And personally, I rarely create the style and export for other files. If I need to re-use a style, I will do composition at the component level (as I mentioned in #59)

from style9.

I wonder if the newly released StyleQ could be of any relevance to this discussion

from style9.

Chiming in to share my preference for the new style. My reasoning is the same as @SukkaW i.e. so the type checker can verify that the style exists

from style9.